Jump to content

User talk:Valenciano: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 838557023 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) try actually addressing what I said rather than templating the regulars
Line 281: Line 281:


:{{u|Jmorrison230582}} To you, summer is obvious, yes. But if you stumbled across an article about say, a Colombian player who transferred "in the summer" (or "dry season") would you know, without looking it up, which dates that applies to? Why force readers to do that? What does the wording of "summer 1978" achieve that "the middle of 1978" or "June 1978" doesn't? The latter is clear per [[MOS:SEASON]]. ("Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous: the seasons are six months apart in the northern and southern hemispheres, and areas near the equator have only wet and dry seasons.") The former is not. You've mentioned [[WP:ENGVAR]] for the second time, so I'll ask you, for the second time, what part of it you think supports such ambiguous phrasing? This: "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English. '''Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.''' " seems perfectly clear to me. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano#top|talk]]) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Jmorrison230582}} To you, summer is obvious, yes. But if you stumbled across an article about say, a Colombian player who transferred "in the summer" (or "dry season") would you know, without looking it up, which dates that applies to? Why force readers to do that? What does the wording of "summer 1978" achieve that "the middle of 1978" or "June 1978" doesn't? The latter is clear per [[MOS:SEASON]]. ("Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous: the seasons are six months apart in the northern and southern hemispheres, and areas near the equator have only wet and dry seasons.") The former is not. You've mentioned [[WP:ENGVAR]] for the second time, so I'll ask you, for the second time, what part of it you think supports such ambiguous phrasing? This: "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English. '''Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.''' " seems perfectly clear to me. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano#top|talk]]) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}} [[User:Jmorrison230582|Jmorrison230582]] ([[User talk:Jmorrison230582|talk]]) 19:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:40, 27 April 2018

Template:Archive box collapsible

Anti-vandalism barnstar

Hello! I saw your anti-vandalism edit on the Woodstock North High School page today. I really appreciated your work in getting rid of this vandalism and wanted to give you a barnstar for it! :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
message Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open Episcopal Church

Hi, I think you have tried to help in bringing what you have termed an 'edit war' to an end on the Open Episcopal Church entry. I did not know about the rules to which you refer, so it has been helpful to discover this. However, Gorilla has posted their false entry again. Given what you have written, I think you have indicated, I must not remove it again, but what else can I do to stop this malicious editor continuing to vandalise the page please? Integrity4488hope (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Despite attempts by Integrity4488 to redact factual information that has been added, no more attempts will be made by Gorilla1978 to reverse Integrity4488's erroneous and inaccurate redactions and additions as the subsequent edit warring is not helpful to Wikipedia. But be aware that the redactions and additions by Integrity4488 that Gorilla1978 has objected to are misleading and inaccurate. This means that the page is compromised as a resource if Integrity4488's editing is restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorilla1978 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Attempts have been made to add information that is factually verifiable and true and Integrity4488 has been redacting it continuously. There is evidence to support all of the information that has been added regarding the 2014 events which led to lots of people leaving the OEC. If this information needs to be verified by an audit trail of emails then it can be. And indeed other evidence too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorilla1978 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorilla1978: the problem I had with your edits were additions like this: "However, his literary tour de force must be his 2017 blog "How to Cope with Hot Nights", which stresses the importance of nudity in the bedroom on those sticky summer evenings. This blog article will doubtless have saved many from the misery of sweaty armpits and crotches."
Does that sound to you like the type of information that should be in a serious encyclopedia? Not to me, it sounds like the type of commentary I'd expect to find in an opinion piece in "popular"/"yellow" press or on a blog.
You're totally right that you haven't been the only one doing this, looking through the edits of you and Integrity4488hope I find additions of the following commentary....
"The fissiparous nature of a smaller jurisdiction, lacking the stability that stipends and in service benefits offer, have seen various individuals and groups exodus the church."
"The church has maintained a stable and growing core of committed clerics"
"The fissiparous nature of a smaller jurisdiction, lacking the proper accountable leadership of many mainstream churches offer ....makes the church vulnerable to archbishops who have little self-awareness or self-discipline."
All of that is pure POV and editorialising. When making additions you both need to stick to what reliable sources say and report what they say in a neutral, dispassionate tone, backing up what you say by linking to those sources. Most important, though, is that you both stop edit warring, as that could lead to you both being blocked under the WP:3RR rule. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution: if someone reverts you, go to the article talk page, in this case Talk:Open_Episcopal_Church and try and find a compromise. If that doesn't work, you can ask for a third opinion and then the next stage would be Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If you're stuck, you're both welcome to ask me, I hadn't heard of the Open Episcopal Church before yesterday, so I don't have any horse in that race so to speak. Valenciano (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Gorilla1978 accepts that the edit you cite above is judged by you as an editor to be of editorial tone and so Gorilla1978 accepts its withdrawal. However the important edit made by Gorilla1978 was the original one that contained important details about people leaving the church in 2014. This text was based on fact and had no subjective commentary in it at all. Integrity4488hope falsely claimed this text was subjective and then redacted it without legitimate reason. Gorilla1978 does not consoder dialogue with Integrity4488hope to be of any value due to the latter's user's inability to distinguish subjective from objective text, or indeed to understand the very nature of historicity or how to substantiate arguments. So Gorilla1978 will refrain from making any more edits but states on record that the edits in question made by the holder of username Integrity4488hope are inaccurate or misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorilla1978 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi! It's been a while. Could you tell me the :en:wiki procedure to remove a-not-very-argumented template:NPOV tag? Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asqueladd. Generally, follow the guidance here: Template:POV#When_to_remove. If you give me the article in question, I can have a look. Valenciano (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks! If you want to take a look, it's Hispanidad.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English or WP?

Yes, you're correct - and your new change is a great solution. - Snori (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Plural of "ABS" is the same as the plural of "ATM" ("ATMs"), etc.

I started a discussion about pluralizing "ABS" as "ABSs"--that is, "anti-lock braking systemS" the same way as we pluralize "ATM" as "ATMs," etc. Will you please show this other editor why that's correct with me?

Thanks if so, 174.23.105.242 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loans

But doesn't that header imply that the players have left permanently? – PeeJay 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay2K3 Maybe, but in the context of a season, it hardly matters, since the player won't feature again. However, for clarity, probably could just say "out on loan." I think leaving him there is also problematic as it implies he's still a squad member. I'll leave it to you. Valenciano (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

1rr report

Just to point out you'll be lucky to get action on the IP for 1rr violation unless you give them the specific warning template for it and then they violate it again. A simple letting them know of it without the template no longer counts apparently. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. In this case, they were blocked. I wouldn't be surprised if they are a new guise of a previously blocked user. They know their way around here too well to be otherwise. Valenciano (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They got blocked as an open proxy of someone previously blocked so that probably helped. Mabuska (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Valenciano. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Precious four years

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !!!

Hello Valenciano: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you CAPTAIN RAJU. I hope you have great holidays and a happy 2018. Valenciano (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed But forgot to Patroll

Dear Valenciano, Want to thank you for taking your time to edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babasola_Ogunwa article

Notice it wasn't patrol after your edit, will like to request you use your good office to patrol the article to be live on google.

Looking forward to a positive response/ patrol of the article.

Thanks. Prince Kekeocha (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Valenciano, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bremner

You're being overly pedantic. It's obvious what "summer" refers to when you're talking about someone who played their whole career in the northern hemisphere. For example, all of the transfer list articles (e.g. List of English football transfers summer 2017 or List of English football transfers winter 2017–18) refer to the transfer period at that time of year (May to August being the "summer" window, and January the "winter" window). We don't use List of English football transfers from May to August 2017 or List of English football transfers in the middle of 2017 just because somebody in the southern hemisphere may be (irrationally) confused. That's why WP:ENGVAR applies. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison230582 To you, summer is obvious, yes. But if you stumbled across an article about say, a Colombian player who transferred "in the summer" (or "dry season") would you know, without looking it up, which dates that applies to? Why force readers to do that? What does the wording of "summer 1978" achieve that "the middle of 1978" or "June 1978" doesn't? The latter is clear per MOS:SEASON. ("Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous: the seasons are six months apart in the northern and southern hemispheres, and areas near the equator have only wet and dry seasons.") The former is not. You've mentioned WP:ENGVAR for the second time, so I'll ask you, for the second time, what part of it you think supports such ambiguous phrasing? This: "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia. " seems perfectly clear to me. Valenciano (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valenciano&oldid=838557462"