Jump to content

User talk:RoySmith/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

FOME Alliance

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:FOME_Alliance

Hello Roy: You rejected a draft on the FOME Alliance for reasons of brevity and because the names of all the members of the alliance were from the same source.

1. Is there a more appropriate space for a nascent article? I recall Wikipedia allowed stubs. Possibly, this policy has changed or there is a minimum word count now.

2. There are a total of 8 links in the References section, of which only 2 refer to FOME's website and 1 is associated with a member's school. The rest are independent publications. I do not see how 'most of the sources' therefore point to FOME's own website. Is it because of the repeated use of the list of members? I can certainly collapse that into a single reference.

3. By what criterion is the Reimagine Education conference 'meaningless'? Is it because it is an industry award? The conference is co-organised by QS Quacquarelli Symonds and Wharton, neither of which would be considered not notable in their own right.

I am trying to understand what critical boundary of notability a grouping of entities, each of which is fully notable separately, needs to cross to be notable collectively.

Hi, and thanks for your note. To address your question: Yes, Draft space is the correct place to be working on a new article. As for awards, perhaps "meaningless" was a poor choice of words, but industry awards are generally not considered significant for establishing notability. The best suggestion I have is to read WP:NCORP, which lays out what we're looking for. The best reference, by far, that you have is the Financial Times article. Look at the bullet points under WP:SIRS. Is this significant coverage? Yes; it's a feature-length that talks mostly about this subject. Is it independent? Clearly yes. Is the Financial Times reliable? Again, clearly yes. Is it a secondary source? That's a little fuzzier to define sometimes, but I'd say this is. More about that at WP:SECONDARY. So, what we need now is several (i.e. "multiple") sources of that quality. That's what I'm not seeing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarity re: Feedback on Ben Lamm article draft

As mentioned earlier this morning, I wanted to send a couple of questions your way to hopefully get clarity on your feedback before we revise the Ben Lamm page draft and resubmit.

  • Regarding the submission reading like an advertisement: We understand that a neutral point of view is vital to Wikipedia, and as such, drafted the submission with that guideline at the forefront of our approach. Upon re-reviewing, we’re having difficulty identifying anything that’s not a neutral statement of fact, but of course, we welcome your perspective. Could you please elaborate on or point to any areas that are problematic so we can get a better feel for what needs to be corrected in the re-submission?
  • Regarding sources: We also sought to use reliable, independent sources that covered the subject’s history and work in depth (such as the pieces we cited from Popular Mechanics, Texas Monthly, Dallas Morning News, D Magazine). While correct that some of the other sources we used are intended to validate historical details about Lamm’s history and work, we did provide sources that are about the subject, self-published, independent and amount to more than passing mentions. Is the recommendation that we remove any sources that could be construed as having just passing mentions or is there any concern about the independence of the sources? (With the exception of Baylor University and his list of writing contributions – we can see how those are too close of a connection.) Again, any additional guidance or examples of problematic sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jon Gray (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    Jon Gray, I must respectfully point out that you are getting paid to do what you do, I am a volunteer. I am of the opinion that paid editing is antithetical to the goals of this project and I do not feel obligated to offer my valuable time for free so you can make money. I suggested you provide WP:THREE sources for the next reviewer to look at, but you chose to ignore my suggestion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

AfDs opened by socks

Dear RoySmith, I have striked comments of the socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive on different AfDs. But what should be done with the AfDs they opened? Should we let them run? Thanks - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I looked at the three you struck. I would have put a note right in the AfD text explaining why you struck them, so whoever closes them doesn't need to hunt up the annotation in the edit comments, but I think what you did is reasonable. I've seen some CUs edit out AfD comments from blocked socks in the past, but I don't know if that's strictly required. @DeltaQuad: anything to add here? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Good that. Do have a look there, they have not contributed in any comments but opened the AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Majlis Sada-e-Haq, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor Alam Khalil Amini, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vipin Kumar Tripathi - I mean, should we be adding a note at the top of AfD that this "AfD is opened by a sock who has been blocked indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive". Regards. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
AaqibAnjum, I'd added notes to those three. I don't see any harm in letting them run. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also added the same note to other AfDs nominated by these users. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@AaqibAnjum: Usually strike votes, not noms, and let them run their course or let someone snow close it. Closing admins are good for figuring out when to ignore a sock. Hope that helps Roy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. DQ) - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lincoln Project

Just a query about your article The Lincoln Project which I have just moved into the queue to appear shortly at DYK. I notice that the text mentions four founders, George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, and Rick Wilson, but at some stage someone has added Jennifer Horn as a founder in the infobox. Is that correct, because it is not mentioned in the text of the article or on her article page? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, Hmmm. That's a good question. I did some more searching and have found some sources that credit her as being a co-founder, but most don't. I'm inclined to take that out. I'll take a look at the article now and see what I can do to resolve this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
PS, the edit where this was added (by X1\) sourced this (in the edit comment) to a YouTube video posted from what appears to be the official Lincoln Project account. The title of that video identifies her as a co-founder. She's listed on https://lincolnproject.us/ as one of the Advisors, but I haven't been able to find an authoritative list of founders. This Newsweek article only lists Conway, Schmidt, Weaver, and Wilson as founders. This calls her a founder and this strongly implies it. So, I guess I'd go along with calling her a founder. It might be worth some equivocating "some sources say..." language, but for now, I'd say just leave it as is. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous socking message

I am not using multiple accounts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:828A:4944:37D:31B6:8437:10D4 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous socking message

I am not using multiple accounts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:828A:4944:37D:31B6:8437:10D4 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Truthwins018

I was about to warn this user for copyright violations, then I saw he already got away from a pretty solid SPI and has been already warned over copyrights.[1] He is basically WP:NOTHERE who is still engaging in mass copyright violations per his recent edit.[2] See results of his recent edit that how much he has violated COPYVIO. I would say an indef block for recurring copyright violations is very justifiable. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, Hi. Thanks for your note. I'm snowed under with SPI stuff at the moment, and copyvio isn't my area of expertise. Could I ask you to open a case at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, where it'll get the right attention? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new beta version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It has a new zoom function when you look at images. It can also suggest places when you upload geotagged photos. [3]

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Commons database on 27 May. Commons could not be edited for eight minutes. Because of this problem the database was moved. This caused another short read-only time on 29 May. [4][5][6]
  • The Vector skin had a problem where you couldn't add links to the article in other languages. You couldn't see the section if there were no links to other languages already. It also removed content translation links and links to language settings. This has now been fixed. [7]

Changes later this week

  • You can get a notification when someone links to a page you created. You can turn these notifications off for individual pages. You can soon turn them off also in the notifications you get. [8]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 June. It will be on all wikis from 4 June (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#FloridaArmy_and_AfC_woes. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquis

Hello, First, thanks for your help. This is for sure the same person, however. They recreated, within minutes, identical complex list articles that were previously created by a confirmed sock and that have been deleted for months. This person is also known to create accounts when travelling. See for example User:KoreanBill and User:183.96.203.13. There is absolutely no reason why you would know this, as this particularly incarnation did not make it onto the sockpuppet page, nor did I mention it in my report. But to me, it is crystal clear that this is the same person per Duck, who happens to be travelling again and I will probably block them shortly as such. thanks again for all your work --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Slp1, Thanks for your note. Feel free to re-open the case and add your additional evidence. Once you've done that, I'll take another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to reopen the case, sorry about that, but I have have added a few more explanations of this editor's patterns on the current SPI page.--Slp1 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Slp1, No problem, I've reopened it for you. I'll take another look. Can't make any promises about what I find, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft: REWAVE Distribution

Hey Roy!

First of all, I want to thank you for reviewing my article and giving the constructive feedback. I am not just saying it for the heck of it, as it really sparked some new ideas and thoughts. I was able to make the necessary changes and would be grateful, if you could have a look and tell me what you think.

Best regards

Jainemark

Hi, and thanks for your note. I'm going to leave the next review to another editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Great! Thank you buddy! -- Jaine (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2020 (CET)

RE: Draft:Kawkhali massacre

Hello, RoySmith...

According to your advice, I have added 'reportedly' and 'allegedly' to give the article more neutral tone. Lack of neutrality seemed to be the reason for rejection. I also added citation from 2 books which were written by neutral authors. The article 'Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict' is mainly military in nature. I think 'Kawkhali massacre' deserve it's own article where 300 indigenous people were killed.

Kind regards, --SakmaBuddhist (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

SakmaBuddhist, Hi, and thanks for your note. I'm unconvinced that your changes make any substantial progress in making the article neutral. For example, if you wrote, "Roy Smith is a racist, and beats his wife, and kills kittens", just adding "allegedly" to that wouldn't make it neutral. That's sort of the same problem here. To start with, the title, "Kawkhali massacre" is biased. There's a long history of battles being called massacres only by one side. For example, in my own country's history, take a look at Battle of Fort Pillow; one side called it a massacre, the other side called it self-defence. Perhaps the same thing is happening here with Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict? In any case, I'm going to leave this and let somebody else review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Lincoln Project

On 1 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Lincoln Project, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that four prominent Republicans have endorsed a Democrat for president in 2020? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Lincoln Project. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Lincoln Project), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WOW! Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Yeah, that's kind of neat. And, weren't you doing two a day, so that just in 12 hours? What I actually find amazing is how little vandalism there's been. A couple of "Orange man bad!" drive-bys, and that's about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, 2 a day. It got 1,665 pageviews per hour! Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Some articles have tables that can be sorted in different ways. For example a list of countries can be sorted alphabetically but you can click on the size column to sort them by size. If you clicked on the column a second time it would sort the countries from the bottom to the top instead. A third click will now take you back to the original sorting. [9]
  • Self-closed tags now work as in the HTML5 specifications. This means you should stop using some of them. <b/> is an example of a self-closed tag that won't work. area, base, br, col, embed, hr, img, input, keygen, link, meta, param, source, track, wbr can be self-closed. Pages with tags that should not be self-closed have been listed in a tracking category since 2016. They will be listed in Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tag. This doesn't affect <references /> or <ref />. [10]
  • There is a banner called WikidataPageBanner. It is for example used by the Wikivoyages, Wikimedia Russia and the Catalan, Basque, Galician and Turkish Wikipedias. It will now been seen by mobile visitors too. Before this it was only seen on desktop. The wikis should update instructions on MediaWiki:Sitenotice so that editors know to test and style for mobile too. [11][12]

Changes later this week

  • Advanced item You can now edit MassMessage descriptions through the API. This is useful for tools and gadgets. [13]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 June. It will be on all wikis from 11 June (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Your reference to The Internet Oracle here made me smile today. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:SPI case

Hi, RoySmith I have opened a WP:SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roman Fiori. Would be very grateful if you can help. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, I agree that Draft:Roman Fiori is a low-quality article, but I have to ask what is so special about it that you felt the need to:
  1. Tag it for COI
  2. Decline the draft
  3. Nominate it for CSD
  4. Open an SPI case
  5. Ping me to go see the SPI case
That seems like an exceptional reaction to what looks to me to be a run of the mill piece of spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, Thanks for the quick resolution to the request, (1) username and draft title are same suggesting possible WP:COI (2) The draft consisted only un-reliable sources embedded that are discouraged as per WP:YTREF, WP:IMDB/BLP and was not notable as per WP:ANYBIO (3) The draft was WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:TOOSOON (4) Report to WP:SPI as a possible attempt to evade WP:COI by re-submitting via an IP and lastly (5) I have seen you very active as a SPI clerk and thought it would be valuable from your analysis so make a courtesy ping.
If you feel the approach of pinging was in-appropriate I would not make such an inconvenience in future. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepper Group

Hi RoySmith. Thank you for reviewing the 3 sources and for your feedback. Please check the 3 sources below if they are okay.

https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/70027/growing-disconnect-between-ordinary-australians-and-financial-institutions---pepper-money-survey
https://www.scmp.com/country-reports/business/topics/australia-new-zealand-business-report-2017/article/2112113/pepper
http://anthillonline.com/fintech-hacks-biggest-issue-facing-financial-services-industry/

Aurdivon (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Aurdivon, I did that already, on 24 April. See the comments I left on the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith. These are new sources and different from the 3 that you checked before. I hope that they're okay. Aurdivon (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Aurdivon, I'm sorry, but it's a one-time offer. Somebody else will review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Aurdivon (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Mockup of the new reply feature, showing new editing tools
The new features include a toolbar. What do you think should be in the toolbar?

This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Advanced item Toolforge hosts several tools created by the Wikimedia community like edit counters or enhanced editors. It is changing the domain from tools.wmflabs.org to toolforge.org. The routing scheme is moving from tools.wmflabs.org/toolname to toolname.toolforge.org. You can read the details. Tools that use OAuth will have to be updated to keep working. You can ask for help.

Problems

  • There is a Wikidata item link in the sidebar on many pages. This disappeared for a couple of days for users who have the Monobook skin. This was because of a bug. It has now been fixed. [15]
  • Editing, logging in and logging out didn't work properly for a short period of time last week. It was soon fixed. [16]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 June. It will be on all wikis from 18 June (calendar).

Future changes

  • Advanced item Pywikibot is a Python library to automate work on wikis. It will not support Python 2 after the new version in July. Support for Python 3.4 and MediaWiki below 1.19 will also be dropped. You should migrate to Python 3. You can ask for help. [17]
  • The selectors .menu and .vectorMenu will no longer work in the Vector skin. This can affect gadgets and user scripts. .menu should be replaced by ul. .vectorMenu should be replaced by .vector-menu. [18]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

June 17, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

This month, we'll check in on the global WikiCup race and have as featured speaker our local champion and frontrunner, who is trying to win it by writing as many new New York City articles as possible, as well as other local and global topics.

Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

We especially encourage folks to add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

quarry:query/45926

  1. This omits pages that have been deleted. Either left join page, or look at log_namespace/log_title and eliminate the page join entirely.
  2. It doesn't make a difference here, but in usually you'd want to use the comment_logging and actor_logging views if you're coming at them via the logging table. The comment and actor views as exposed to toolforge are extremely ugly - run "SHOW CREATE TABLE comment; SHOW CREATE TABLE comment_logging;" to see why. There's similar views for other tables - (actor|comment)_(archive|filearchive|image|ipblocks|logging|oldimage|recentchanges|revision|user). —Cryptic 20:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. It doesn't make a difference here either, but log_action isn't indexed unless you include log_type (also ='create' in this case) too. (Or, well, at least it didn't used to be. We still don't have permissions to query indices, and they're not listed at mw:Manual:logging table. Damn revision deletion anyway.)
  4. Finding the tags like I suggested, um, looks hard. You'd have to pull the rev_id out of log_params to start with, and I'm not sure exactly where the tags are actually stored even after poking around a bit. (change_tag, maybe.) Yes, I knew page_is_redirect shows the current state, not what it was when created, but still think it'd be more accurate even so than examining the comment field.
  5. It's immoral not to put sql keywords in all caps. Consider yourself duly warned. —Cryptic 20:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    Cryptic, Hmmm, good point about the deleted pages. As you might be able to tell, SQL is not my strength. I think I slept through the class where they talked about left joins. Yeah, OK, I remember, it has to do with how you deal with values missing from one side of the join, but I need to go look up the details every time. Fortunately, for this particular use case, I'm not worried about getting all the edge cases right.
    I find this schema to be absurdly complicated. I guess that's to be expected with a 15 year old system that's grown beyond anybody's wildest imagination. Every time I try to write a query, I get surprised by something new. The multiple views, each indexed differently, drives me batty. Not to mention that explain doesn't work. Speaking of caps, comment_text is a blob??? WTF? If you really want to see me frothing at the mouth, ask me what I think about log_params :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    As I alluded to, it wouldn't be so bad except that the replicas have to jump through hoops to avoid exposing revdeleted data (and oversighted data, which uses the same system now). I have the slight advantage of having run a company-internal mediawiki install for a while a couple years ago, so I got to see this stuff from the other side.
    log_params is the way it is for the convenience of php. Everything php touches is obscene. —Cryptic 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Florida Army and a Plant

We are in agreement. I said at WP:ANI that I thought it was a good-faith error. Nightenbelle draftified it, as she should have, and I accepted it, as I should have. As I said, I have more confidence in the WikiProject Plants volunteers to improve a plant stub than I do in either myself or FA, but they only improve it after it is in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on the Z/OS Encryption Readiness Technology (zERT) article

Hi Roy,@RoySmith:

Thanks for your reply at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Z/OS_Encryption_Readiness_Technology_(zERT)

I think the references provide signification coverage in secondary sources, especially in this downloadable whitepaper (https://www.intellimagic.com/resources/whitepaper/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-ibms-zert-for-tracking-mainframe-network-traffic/). The whitepaper (15-page PDF) addresses zERT directly (in the title and across the main topic). It is also the author's own evaluation and analysis of how to get the most out of zERT when tracking mainframe network traffic.

Please let me know what you'd think. Thanks again!


Hi Roy,

Hope you are doing well. Thanks for clarifying your comments on the article I submitted: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Z/OS_Encryption_Readiness_Technology_(zERT)

I went through the references listed and identified the following references that are independent and provide significant coverage about zERT. Please let me know if there is any problem to meet the criteria. Thanks!

How to get the most out of IBM’s zERT for tracking mainframe network traffic (a whitepaper from published by Intellimagic) https://www.intellimagic.com/resources/whitepaper/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-ibms-zert-for-tracking-mainframe-network-traffic/

Technical bulletin — MainView for IP now supports IBM zERT encryption (documentation published by bmc): https://docs.bmc.com/docs/bmcmainframe/technical-bulletin-mainview-for-ip-now-supports-ibm-zert-encryption-809549728.html

Use zERT Data to Verify That Incoming Connections Adhere to Security Policy (documentation published by BROADCOM): https://techdocs.broadcom.com/content/broadcom/techdocs/us/en/ca-mainframe-software/performance-and-storage/ca-netmaster-network-management-for-tcp-ip/12-2/implementing/configuring-event-monitoring/use-zert-data-to-verify-that-incoming-connections-adhere-to-security-policy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Zhang YiChen (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Relating to MeneerTijn SPI

Hello, I feel the behavioral link is clear and convincing to support behavioral link Please see:

One minute apart... on the same article Firefox Send also participated by Dwaro https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Firefox_Send&type=revision&diff=887803493&oldid=887803465

add: Not only it is the same article, it is also on the overlapping part of the article. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Overlap on interest on Nokia 105 MeneerTijn Dwaro

Overlap on cryptography topic [19] MeneerTijn

Overlap on participation in Dutch https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/MeneerTijn

@Berean Hunter: as well.

Thank you Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, We're talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwaro, right? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I am. I apologize if this wasn't the right way to discuss it, I was not sure how to go about it to re-open the SPI. In my opinion, the probbility is pretty slim that two unrelated users edit on the same article on same part of the prose minutes apart, also happen to share interest in Nokia 105, and share interest in cryptography topic, and both also happen to participate in nl.wikipedia an en.wikipediaGraywalls (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls please see MeneerTijn's talk page where they appealed the block. If you believe you have new evidence, I suppose the right thing to do would be to open a new SPI case, but since we're here, I'll just ping TonyBallioni who unblocked them and Berean Hunter who was also involved and see if we can figure this out with less bureaucracy. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
They likely know one another but are different people. BH can speak more to the CU log than I can, but basically we can kinda catch a glimpse at historical CU data through the log. Sometimes it works really well. In this case we misinterpreted the historical data. We then unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is [...text redacted...]. Given the use of proxy and such mentioned in SPI, IP based check would probably be useless. the behavior suggests WP:DUCK. Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, I've taken the unusual step of redacting part of your comment above. I'm sure it was unintentional, but what you posted appeared to be a violation of WP:OUTING, so in an abundance of caution, I deleted that portion of your text. As for the socking itself, I think for now, we'll have to let this be. Even if it's true that they were socking, one of two things is likely to happen. One, they might have been educated about socking by this incident and stop doing it, in which case we're good. Two, they might continue to sock, in which case we'll probably catch them later, as they provide more evidence. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Daisy May Cooper

PP probably needs extending. diff. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, Sigh. I gave it another two weeks. Hopefully they'll get bored by then. If not, ping me again. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on the Z/OS Encryption Readiness Technology (zERT) article

Hi Roy,

Thanks for your reply at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Z/OS_Encryption_Readiness_Technology_(zERT)

I think the references provide signification coverage in secondary sources, especially in this downloadable whitepaper (https://www.intellimagic.com/resources/whitepaper/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-ibms-zert-for-tracking-mainframe-network-traffic/). The whitepaper (15-page PDF) addresses zERT directly (in the title and across the main topic). It is also the author's own evaluation and analysis of how to get the most out of zERT when tracking mainframe network traffic.

Please let me know what you'd think. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Zhang YiChen (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There are some new tools to make it easier for newcomers to start editing. They are available on some wikis. These wikis had a problem with the visual editor for a short period of time last week. This was because of a bug in the new tools. It was soon fixed. [20]
  • Advanced item Some user scripts and gadgets stopped working because of a change to CSS selectors. .vectorTabs should be replaced with .vector-menu-tabs to fix this. [21]

Changes later this week

  • The developers are working on a new interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This will be released on 24 June. You can give feedback. [22]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 June. It will be on all wikis from 25 June (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Sacred groves of Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam has been accepted

Thank You very much sir with regards Dr. M. Rama Murty (Bmantha)Bmantha (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC) This is my second article sir. You have given enough recognition for my article...really I am very very happy and thank you a lot again sir. This will act as a boost or catalyst to me in improving the articles and creating more for the wiki readers.. and also to expand my knowledge also sir with best wishes and regardes --Bmantha (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bmantha, I'm glad you've joined the project, and thank you for your kind words. Looking forward to seeing more articles from you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Trust the CU

Given the limits on what they can tell us, there's not much other choice than to trust them implicitly. Even if it leaves me feeling that the fez is a poor symbol for SPI clerks, and that Harry Harlow's baby monkeys seem more appropriate on occasion.

It's not a blind trust as recent events have shown, they too are scrutinised and supervised. Just my 2¢, Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Two archives

Hi RoySmith, could you possibly consider archiving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snksounak and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television station logos? I closed them so am unable to archive but they are pretty well the remaining two left to be archived + have been sitting closed for a few days now. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I'm not sure what the normal practice is at SPI. In my work at AfD and DRV, I've taken the attitude that I won't close any discussion which I've participated in, in any way. A very strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. I've been doing the same with archiving at SPI, but maybe that's more conservative than I need to be? The clerk corps is small. If everybody who ever touched anything in any way sits out, nothing will ever get done. I'll take a look at those.
My training so far has been interesting. I alternate between feeling good that I'm on top of this, and plunging into despair when I make some stupid mistake and get called out for it. Oh well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
In neither case were you acting as an administrator nor did you originate either report. As such, by definition, WP:INVOLVED does not apply (specifically, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." and "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.").
The main "rule" here is that if you closed the case, you don't archive it (so as to ensure 2 sets of eyes to increase the likelihood of catching any mistakes). I take the stance that if you haven't issued the blocks, closed the case, or opened it (potential exception being withdrawing) you don't archive. In the case of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television station logos, moving the case is a strictly clerical action and would not make you involved either per the same spirit of the second section I quoted above from WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, no "admin" actions were involved (and even if you had G6'd and then restored a case page in process of caring out clerk duties, I still doubt anyone would call that WP:INVOLVED for all intents and purposes).
Of course, it is up to you and I merely asked that you consider the two. Given your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snksounak post-my comment here, I withdraw that one (since you deferred that archiving) and only ask for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television station logos, if you are comfortable. I hope that this makes sense and is of some helpfulness. Please let me know if you have any questions/clarifications are needed. Please don't beat yourself up over anything though, we are all constantly learning....just recently I got the blocks on the sock and master reversed....it happens to everyone. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, No problem. I took care of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Television station logos. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:FoodSmartphone

Hello. Some weeks ago I sent this page for review and you declined it.I understand your notes and I tried to repair it. You also said, that you could send it to some of your colleagues for another opinion. Do you think it is ok now? Thank you very much for help. Cairek007(talk) 20:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Cairek007, Actually, what I said was, "I'm going to leave the re-review to somebody else". You'll just need to be patient; somebody will get to the review in due time. Although, that won't happen until you resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bayesian History Matching has been accepted

Bayesian History Matching, 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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Thank you for the temporary restoration of my sandbox space. I have copied and moved its content to a different site and it may be deleted again. Not David Brown (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not David Brown, Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Hi. I would kindly like request you to undo your closure of this discussion. The discussion actually showed a clear appetite for having it. Moreover it showed a clear desire to delete the article in question and a strong case for that was being made, while at the same time the few people that comment in favor of keeping did not actually provide meaningful arguments. I understand your concerns of this nomination happening while a DRV was on a prior AFD for that article was still open, but I think that has been overstated. The DRV was technically still open but had clearly run its course and there was a clear consensus to endorse the original AFD's no consensus. It still having been open mas only a matter of procedure. Thus thus there was no scope for the DRV result negatively affecting either AFD. Therefore I feel you have been overconcerned and the second AFD could easily have been allowed to continue. Hence my request.Tvx1 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Tvx1, I, in turn, understand your concern, but I'm going to respectfully decline. Starting a new AfD while the DRV was running is just not how things are done. It is unfortunate that the AfD ran as long as it did. It would have been better if it was caught immediately and closed down before it got going, but I can't do anything about that now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, Please see WP:AN#Request for review of my AfD close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So what do you suggest we do now then? In all honesty I do not see any policy that forbids an AFD from being started while a DRV on an older AFD is sill open. And as I said before the DRV was only technically still open. It had run its course. No new opinions were forthcoming. You've put us in a situation now that an article that the community prefers to have deleted being retained on a technicality. Surely it can not be the case that an article beomes immune to deletion becaus it went through an AFD which ended with no consensus? That's just not how things are done either.Tvx1 15:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Thank you for taking care of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chdondon1990, can you please mass delete pages created by their most recent sock? GSS 💬 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I'm on it. Thanks for the reminder. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
GSS, This isn't going to make you happy, I'm afraid. My first thought was, "No problem, I'll just Special:Nuke them all. Turns out that won't work because that depends on our recents table, which doesn't go back more than 30 days. Then I figured, "Well, if that's not going to work, I'll use WP:AWB", but that turns out not to work a Mac. See WP:VPT#Special:Nuke only finding a few pages.
So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this for somebody who has better tools and can do this in an automated, or at least semi-automated way. My apologies for not being able to give you better service on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem.. I'll go ahead and tag them manually. GSS 💬 03:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Everyone was logged out. This was because a few users saw the wikis as if they were logged in to someone else's account. The problem should be fixed now. [24]
  • Some readers didn't see new edits to pages. If the page had been recently changed they saw an older version of the page instead. This only affected readers who were logged out. It lasted for ten days. It has been fixed. [25]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 July. It will be on all wikis from 1 July (calendar).

Future changes

  • The Modern and Monobook skins use the ID searchGoButton for the go button. This is searchButton for Vector. To have the same ID for all skins it will change to searchButton in Monobook and Modern too. This will affect gadgets and user scripts. It will happen on 23 July. They should be updated to use searchButton. You can read more and see a list of affected scripts.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_32&oldid=999561638"