Jump to content

User talk:Andrew Base/Archives/2019/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Event coordinator granted

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account until November 1. Keep in mind these things:

  • The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
  • The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
  • The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
  • Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Daya Reddy

Hi Andrew. Could you explain to me in what way Draft:Daya Reddy is "contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia"? I actually thought the initial AfC decline by CASSIOPEIA was itself potentially questionable (based upon the apparent Fellowships of prestigious national learned societies), though it still needs much more work on the referencing to confirm it meets WP:NACADEMIC. But your subsequent rejection rationale at AfC nearly made me fall off my perch. Have I missed something obvious here, or were you having an off-day? (oops-that sounds ruder than I intended it to be. I bet Nataliembent must have wondered what hit them, too) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Barkeep49, Lourdes, and Nataliembent: Hi Moyes, I initial declined of the draft this edit version was because it had no source provided to support the content claimed. I share the opinion of Moyes that to mark Draft:Daya Reddy as "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and nominate The Honeymooners (2003) to AfD just because the article was without sources do demonstrate to me that you have yet to understand the basic notability, Subject-specific guidelines, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Content policy. I do suggest you to hold back the AfC and NPP review until you are familiar with the review process and review criteria to decline/accept/AfD of an article for which is the reason you enrolled in NPPSCHOOL and pls do the exercise for assignment 1 as requested as I have set for you so you gain the needed knowledge. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll just add that I do really welcome enthusiasm and interest from young new editors like Andrew. But I do sense there is an element of 'hat-collecting' going on here, which concerns me. I see this user now has sought or gained NPP rights, pending changes reviewer, event coordinator rights, AFC reviewer permission, and has just signed themselves up as a Teahouse host, too, and has an infobox suggestive of an interest in becoming an admin on day. That's all brilliant and very commendable, Andrew, but just make sure you don't run before you have learned to walk, or that you don't neglect school work for wiki work. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Hi Nick, thanks for the note and I am not neglecting my school work, my school is currently closed due to Puja vacation in Kolkata. And about your note about hat collecting, I was granted rollback right because I had experience in counter vandalism and at that time I was working on a CVUA course with Girth Summit and I was also granted the reviewer rights. My original request for NPR was declined due to lack of experience but Barkeep49 granted me the AFC reviewer rights so that I can gain experience and few days later Lourdes granted me the NPR rights even though I didn’t request it. But per CASSIOPEIA I would not use the NPP and AFC rights until you tell me and I will hopefully complete the first assignment on my course by today.Andrew Base (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Base, not much for me to add here - I'm comfortable that Andrew understands the countervandalism process well enough to be trusted with Rollback, but I have advised them in the past to slow down and build up experience gradually, so I'll just repeat that advice - you've got the right intentions and your enthusiasm does you credit, but reviewing drafts and new articles requires a lot more subtlety and tact than reverting vandals - take it easy, and follow Cass's advice as you go through the training. GirthSummit (blether) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


@Nick Moyes, Nataliembent, and Girth Summit:, Hi Andrew Base, Thank you for answering the questions of your NPPSCHOOL Assignment 1. However, I have noticed that you have change a numbers of of previous answers in your recent edits. I truly believe you have copied the answers from one of my NPPSCHOOL students' assignment where by the timing of your edits and the answers reflected the indication /similarity in text and explanation of theirs. NPPSCHOOL or CUVA program is set up to help editors to familiar with the subjects under a more experienced editor guidance so they may equipped with necessary knowledge to help on NPP reviewing or fighting vandalism. If you seriously want to help, you need to know the guidelines and not just cheat you way so you may hat collecting. I therefore have to remove you from the NPPSCHOOL program which I have set out for you. Please note @Barkeep49 and Lourdes:. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, that's alarming. I did a little looking around but could I get a better sense from you (via email if you prefer) about your concerns with his conduct at your school?
I don't want to jump to any conclusions but I agree 100% with Cass' denial of the draft which was submitted at that time and am gobstopped at the rejection (not denial) of the draft by Andrew. I think there is clear notability - the version Andrew saw could have been accepted with Andrew removing the list of publications himself - and have gone ahead and accepted the article as clearly meeting NPROF. I admit to always being a bit uncomfortable with the label of hat collector but in this case I worry that permissions were sought without a solid understanding of the policies necessary to use them.
That said, Andrew I'd like to learn more about your thinking of denying Draft:Bacenor and accepting Chhadmabeshi. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Andrew - I've seen your confession at the NPP training school page - it's disappointing that you did this, and that you initially denied it, but good that you've come clean about it now at least. I'm in no position to tell you what to do, but if you want my advice, I'd refer you back to what I said on my talk page a couple of weeks ago when you asked about doing NPP training - spend a few months doing counter vandalism, maybe write some content by expanding some articles you're interested in, read and follow a few AfD discussions and watch how they pan out, maybe even vote on a few - build up your experience gradually before going further with NPP. You might want to consider asking for your AfC and NPP permissions to be removed for now, until you've built up more experience and regained people's confidence. I stand by what I said earlier though - I have no doubt that you can be trusted with Rollback, and to counter vandalism effectively. GirthSummit (blether) 16:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Girth Summit, I’ve rewritten or expanded all of the answers that I copied in NPP. I would like to keep NPR and AFC permissions even though I won't use them until I gain experience. Andrew Base (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
All I can do is offer you advice Andrew - naturally, you can choose whether or not to take it. I note that you have already used the AfC permissions since making your admission on the NPP training page; given your commitment,further up this thread, not to do that until CASS told you to, that doesn't really look great. Again, if I were you, I'd be thinking about what would best show a commitment to learn the ropes and win people's confidence, rather than an eagerness to hold into permissions you say you're not going to use. No hard feelings, I hope. GirthSummit (blether) 18:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Barkeep49 please remove my NPR rights temporarily as I am not yet experienced and do not feel comfortable while using it and Girth Summit just to let you know, that I have rewritten or expanded all of the answers in NPP which I had copied. Andrew Base (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that Andrew, and maybe you think it's OK because of that - but like I told you at the start of the CVUA process, you learn much better through reading, watching and discussing than by looking at someone else's answers and paraphrasing or even expanding them. Training users takes up a lot of time for volunteers like Cass and myself, and it's a bit disappointing to find out that the students are trying to find shortcuts instead of doing it in the way we ask them to. Anyway, I think you've made the right decision in asking Barkeep to remove the perm - keep up the regular editing for a bit, and let me know if you ever want any advice. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, Girth Summit, and Lourdes: Pls see communication at the bottom of this page. Will email Barkeep49 later of the day or tmr for further explanation as I would at work soon. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed Andrew from the list of AfC and removed the reviewer permission. I would endorse Girth's advice to do actions outside of formal NPP/AfC review first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA Having had a quick look at the diff that Andrew reverted, I can see why it would look suspect at first glance - the edit summary "This is an extremely impressive book" doesn't help understand what the purpose of the edit was, and the text added could be misinterpreted as adding puffery about the subject. However - Andrew should of course have looked into this more closely, and seen that the editor was expanding a direct quote from a reviewer, and should not have reverted.
Andrew, you can use this as a learning opportunity. There are a few things which probably went wrong here, and it would be worth thinking about them:
  • Obviously you made the wrong call about the revert. I mentioned to you before the time pressure that Huggle can put you under - try not to succumb to it, look closely at each diff and be sure before reverting. If you see someone modifying a direct quote, looks especially closely - perhaps even check the source to see whether it supports the change, if in any doubt.
  • A generic vandalism warning would not have been appropriate in this case, even if the user had been adding unsourced puffery - we have better templates to use for that, which better explain what they're doing wrong, and give links to the policies they need to read up on. Choosing the right type of revert and warning is possible within Huggle from the drop-down menu, and it is just as important on Huggle as it is with Twinkle.
  • I'd also suggest that your note to the editor below doesn't really look like an apology - I mean, you don't even use the word 'sorry' - we all make mistakes, but whenever I have revert in error, I always make a point of striking through any template I may have issued, and apologising profusely on the user's talk page, explaining what I did wrong - this is important, since other people will see warnings on their talk page (or the page's history, if they remove the template themselves), and may make unfair assumptions about the editor in the future if you don't make any comment there.
Finally, stylistic decisions about your talk page are, of course, entirely down to you; as someone who issues lots of templates though, you may wish to reconsider the 'don't template me' note on this page! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Hello again Girth thanks for your advice I was really confused at the edit summary and reverted the edits using huggle. And also I would like to let you know that I have rewritten almost all of the answers in NPP which I had copied. Andrew Base (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, It is not the Andrew reverted edit but the communication at the bottom of this page.Thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, sorry, I misunderstood your earlier comment. I had seen the admission by Andrew there, and commented on it in this comment. I don't know if I have anything further to add about it at this point, other than to point out to Andrew that training is a volunteer program, and that you are under no obligation to continue with his training. Andrew, I'd advise that you accept that Cassiopeia no longer wishes to train you, and that you stop pinging them asking them to look at your new answers. I also note that you have not retracted or commented upon the warning that you gave to Moscowdreams - I really think the better option would be for you to do that yourself, but I'll drop a note there if you prefer not to. GirthSummit (blether) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: I've rewritten all of the answers I copied, kindly please take a look. Andrew Base (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: and @Girth Summit: I would like to apologize again for copying the answers but I will never do that again and I feel I need this training in order to gain more experience and knowledge about NPP but if Cassiopeia no longer wishes to train me in that case I respect their decision. Andrew Base (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, I have noted you first deny and later admission on NPP page. I also aware that you have reworked the copied answers. I appreciate and thank you for that. I would have given you a chance to continue the NPP program if you had answered the questions by @Nick Moyes: "Could you explain to me in what way Draft:Daya Reddy is "contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia"?", @Barkeep49: " Andrew I'd like to learn more about your thinking of denying Draft:Bacenor and accepting Chhadmabeshi and @Girth Summit: " I also note that you have not retracted or commented upon the warning that you gave to Moscowdreams". We all make mistakes, including I of course, countless of times indeed, and even experienced editor might review the articles incorrectly especially those Specific Notability Guidelines are particularity complicated. However, to ignore answering the questions that would help us to understand the reasons of your actions for we may help you, that does not demonstrate that you want to know your mistakes and learn from them. I echo the suggestions of Girth that you "spend a few months doing counter vandalism, maybe write some content by expanding some articles you're interested in" and do own up your mistakes an apologies when you clearly revert wrongly when fighting vandalism as Grith and I have done many times, especially with a quick hand and clicking the wrong aline at Huggle. I wish you the best and hope you would show a commitment to learn here on and provide good contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 19:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi CASSIOPEIA, I honestly dont know about Draft:Daya Reddy I declined it per the comments based on it at the teahouse and again I will admit that I was given the NPR and AFC permissions too early and I was too inexperienced to use them. And I declined Draft:Bacenor because the subject was too short but accepted Chhadmabeshi because there was the film's cast, soundtrack and references. I know this answers are not perfect at all but that is the reason I need this training so that I can learn more New Page Patrol and as I said I would never ever copy a single answer. I also changed and rewritten all of my copied answers. Andrew Base (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Base, Thank you for your explanation above. First of all, a stub (short article) can be notable and meets all the WP:Content policy requirements. See example below (if there is no Barrack Obama article in Wikipedia and I write an article about him), even with one one simple sentence it passes the notability guidelines and Wikipedia content policy . (1) As a president of U.S is notable as it passes WP:NPOL and not part of what WP:Wikipedia is not. (2) the content is supported by significant coverage (6 sources provided) of (3) independent, (4) reliable sources (from major newspapers and books) which the sources talk about Barrack directly in dept and in length and not merely passing mentioned. (6) I have no conflict of interest here for I am not affiliated with the Barrack (thought it would be an hounour to meet or know him). (7) the content is written in neutral point of view. (8) There is no copyright infringement here as "Barrack Obama" and "United States" of America" are nouns, "president" is a title even under one of the strictest copyright infringement practice "no more than 4 consecutive words from the source".

Barrack Obama was the president of United States of America.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Nagourney, Adam (2008-11-04). "Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  2. ^ "All about US President Barack Obama". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  3. ^ "10 Historians on What Will Be Said About President Obama's Legacy". Time. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  4. ^ "Obama wins historic US election". 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  5. ^ Larry J. Sabato (16 January 2013). Barack Obama and the New America: The 2012 Election and the Changing Face of Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-2265-6.
  6. ^ Julian Zelizer (13 March 2018). The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-8955-6.
I could not comment on Draft:Daya Reddy where there is no link provide about the comment made on Teahouse. I saw your apologies on Moscowdreams talk page ([[User:|Girth Summit]] not trying step on your toes here), do either do what Girth's advice by crossing the warning message or remove the warning message and ' Apologies my mistake -remove by placer" on the edit summary "and" write an apologies message as well. The editor did not make any vandalism edit but provide sources (good edit). By the way, Teahouse is the venues to help editor on "editing topics". By the way do comment further if any for interest editors here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I guess a broad, well written article is not suitable for Wikipedia if it does not meet WP:GNG. Am I right? Also can we please continue with the NPP training?Andrew Base (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: can we continue the training please? Andrew Base (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, irregardless how elegant is the prose of an article and how details and in dept of the subject is reordered in the article if it fails the minimum presume GNG guidelines then it article has no merit in the Wikipedia mainspace. If I write an article about my cat or my teacher so detail that down right to each and every strand of the color of my cat hair or how my guitar teacher plays each and every note of Eruption by Eddie Van Halen in 20,000 words yet they are not worthy to be noted by the independent published sources then the article fails the GNG guidelines and in additional I have a COI (conflict of interest) as the editor of the page. It will server you best as Girth's put it "spend a few months doing counter vandalism, maybe write some content by expanding some articles you're interested in" and if you show show a commitment to learn and provide good contributions after six months, with min additional 2,000 mainspace edits in the time frame, then re-enrolling back to the NPPSCHOOL program would be a possibility. Dont need to rush but do what is necessary as Wikipedia is always here. All the best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't template me

RE:

RE:

Information icon Hello, I'm Andrew Base. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Andrew Base (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as it says above "everyone makes mistakes". Please look over the reversion that you made. Everything is correct, sourced, and within Wikipedia guidelines. I note that you reverted several sources that I added too

Thanks. Moscowdreams (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moscowdreams I made a wrong revert, pls add it back if you haven't already. Andrew Base (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscowdreams (talk • contribs) 07:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgive you for your mistake

I fixed a very important error on the Abraham Lincoln article. Please revert your edit so I can just help Wikipedia and the world. Yours truly, Mr. Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.158.57.226 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you changed Abraham Lincoln's name, your edit was a clear vandalism and so I reverted it. Pls do not make such edits to Wikipedia again. Andrew Base (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Andrew Base! You created a thread called Problem in logging in huggle at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


WikiProject India Newsletter – October 2019

WikiProject India
News
Miscellaneous
Events
Events that occoured on October.
Sent by CAPTAIN MEDUSA on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Chhabra

I've history merged the copy-paste move. It was a declined draft at Draft:Shikha Chhabra. Still maybe should see the same faith though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Base/Archives/2019/October&oldid=927107735"