Wikipedia

User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 44

< User talk:Parsecboy
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

Ironclad advice

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've recently rewritten CSS Baltic from a DANFS copy-paste to a somewhat-longer article incorporating the better more modern sources. It should be able to get GA fairly easily (at least from my experience with stuff like CSS Oregon and USS Maria J. Carlton), but I've never taken a ship article to A-class, and I was wondering if Baltic had a reasonable chance for the levels above GA. Also pinging Sturmvogel 66, who has experience with ironclads of this period, too. (Also Sturm, if this goes well, I've got access to scans of the relevant pages of Bisbee 2018 and a print copy of Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion, both of which have decent content of CSS Missouri and was wondering if you'd have any interest in trying to get Missouri further along as well) Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say probably so. It's a bit short, but as the article notes, records on the ship are very limited and the ships wasn't around for all that long, so you've probably assembled all that can be said about it. I know Peacemaker has had success with fairly short articles like Yugoslav submarine Nebojša and Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana (both FAs), so while Baltic isn't as long as, say, HMS Hood or German battleship Bismarck, it shouldn't really be an impediment. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with Parsec. If the documents didn't survive, there's not much that people can ask for you to add. The only ironclad FAs are HMS Warrior and USS New Ironsides as they're both pretty well documented. I was dubious about my ability to push any of the Confederate ironclads to FA, with the possible exceptions of the Virginia and the Atlanta, until Bisbee's book was published as he provides a hell of a lot of technical detail on not just the engines and I didn't have that much recent info on the actions in the West other than the Official Records.
I've made a pass at the Baltic article, updating the conversions, etc., to the latest standards and tightening some of the language. Feel free to revert any of the latter changes that I've made and we can discuss them on the talk page if I disagree with your reversions. I'd be happy to work with you on updating the Missouri article in preparation for an ACR as well. The riverine activities in the West have never really been a focus for me and I'd be happy for some help. Which reminds me I still need to finish revising the Arkansas article like we'd discussed a while back. Dunno what happened, but I just lost interest. Lured by more endorphin-producing activities like gaming or reading fiction, I suspect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised the range addition from this edit to CSS Fredericksburg went unchallenged since 2008; it seems fairly clear at least to me that Fredericksburg never went 80 knots and wouldn't have been able to go 4160 nmi. Also, any thoughts about what to do with the tonnage/displacement issue with Baltic? I don't feel confident with trying to push it beyond GA without a clear idea of what to go forward with there. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
That's pretty funny - obviously a typo, but an amusing one nonetheless. As for the tonnage/displacement question, I'd go with Kablammo's reasoning on the article talk page. What I suspect happened was that Bisbee and Joiner both misread DANFS and assumed the "t" referred to displacement. You might add a note on their characterization of it as displacement. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Majestic class battleships

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do you have Burt? Conways confirms the reduction in bunkerage was in long tons (not tonnes) and I suspect someone has mistakenly used tonnes here as in many other UK Battleship articles (which I see you are going through - prose needs to be checked too). Oh and an aside, I see you sorting out the Bofors gun mess manually, I'm happy to use AWB to do them, only held off due to the debate about what the article title should be Lyndaship (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I do have Burt (but not on hand at the moment - I'd have to wait until after work to check it. I looked on the version in google books to see if he clarifies what unit he's using, but I couldn't find it in the limited page views available).
On the Bofors links, I figured I might as well start working on them, seeing as there are so many. Whatever title ends up being selected, the Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 link will redirect there, so it's more or less just as good to do it now than wait. I have never used AWB, so I don't know the intricacies of how you can tell it what to do and what not - is there a way to make sure you're not linking to the wrong target? Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok I'll leave resolving the tonnes/tons issue to your goodself. I did the prose on the individual ship articles. I suspect some more tonnes/tons will come up but as they will be displacement related I should be able to resolve those with Conways.
I did a few hundred of the Bofors relinking (US Auxiliary types) with AWB before the debate about whether automatic should be part of the title made me decide to pause. You get a chance to review and change or skip if its not giving you what you want. Basically in this case I do a search by ship class category for those which were constructed before the L/70 was invented (ie up to about 1947) and substitute for example Bofors gun with Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60|Bofors gun which leave the front facing text unchanged but links to the correct article Lyndaship (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Warship

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I notice on [1] and elsewhere you keep reverted |journal=Warship to |journal=Warship 2014. This is incorrect, the name of the magazine is Warship, not Warship 2014. 2014 is the year in which that issue was published, it is not part of the name of the magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That may have been correct when the magazine was published quarterly, but when it became an annual publication, the year was included in the title of each volume. See for instance Worldcat, Google Books, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That's the title of the issue, maybe, but it's not the title of the magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That's the thing, though - it's not a magazine anymore; it's published in hard-bound book with an ISBN, not an ISSN. Even the original periodicals were reprinted in annual hard-bound books that way. I've got several of these on my shelf. Even the publisher lists them this way (as seen here). Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Well then, it should be cited as a book! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
It is an odd situation, to be sure - the article we have should be corrected, probably moving it to Warship (periodical) would be better, and indicating the ISSN no longer applies (though I don't know what the cutoff for that is, exactly; presumably when the change from quarterly to annual publication occurred, but I can't say for sure, and I've never actually seen one of the quarterly issues). Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The Dreadnought Project has a good page on this. It looks like the change happened in 1989. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'd assume, but I'm hesitant to state it for a fact without something better than an educated guess to back it up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
There were five issues of the magazine that were never republished in hardback, 45-49. 45 and 46 have both an ISBN and an ISSN. Even though 47-49 were only published in softcover in 1988, they were not given an ISSN, despite having monthly dates. Go figure. And no ISSN is given is the earlier hardcovers, either. So I've generally used the cite book template, with the possible exception of the five unbound editions (too lazy to look up articles that might have been sourced to them).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I noticed that you arbitrarily removed a photo I added to The USS Massachusetts page with the comment "No room for that here." Any suggestions on where it might be placed to avoid this "no room" issue? It is my first photo that I have decided to share as Public Domain on Wikimedia Commons, and I had planned to share many more from my 40+ year collection, but if it's just going to be deleted a day after posting, what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edburke738 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for uploading the photo. But removing the image wasn’t arbitrary, it was in line with image use guidelines (specifically MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which states “a void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar.”)
It may be worth adding a gallery at the bottom of a few photos of the ship since becoming a museum. I’ll have to go through the Commona category to see what other photos would make sense. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Parsecboy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of unprotected cruisers of Germany – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Giants, I saw you tag the talk page earlier. It'll need a bit of dusting off (which I've already started), but I'll take care of that in next day or two. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for USS Missouri

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated USS Missouri (BB-63) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of European exploration article

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'm leaving a message for you since you were the only other one who commented in the discussion on the talk page for the article Timeline of European exploration (discussion here).

I have very good reason to believe that a known sockpuppet is blocking my legitimate contribution to the page. What should I do about this? Who can I bring this up with to help me? Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

They probably are Jonas Poole (and if not, he's clearly somebody using a throwaway account) - there's WP:SPI but Jonas's accounts are all old, so there'd be no way for a checkuser to confirm they're actually related. Since discussion has petered out, and he seems to have stopped editing, you might just restore the material and move on. If he returns, I can deal with it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I almost guarantee he *will* return, haha. But I will proceed with your permission. Thank you. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good, but to be clear, you don't need my permission - admins don't have any more authority in a situation like this than you do. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I gotcha. I'm just worried about finding myself in an edit war and seeing consequences for it.
So, he reverted the edits again. Should I restore them again in your opinion? I think it's clear he's just going to revert the edit every time, so I don't know what to do here since I'm in a situation where a legitimate contribution is being blocked. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Your best bet would probably be to try to get more people involved - you might try posting neutral invitations for comments at relevant wikiprojects (WP:GEOGRAPHY and WP:HISTORY seem like the best place to start). You could also start an WP:RFC or request a third opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bismarck illustration.png

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Bismarck illustration.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Bismarck illustration.png listed for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bismarck illustration.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Kreuzer Emden, 1936 visit Portland, Oregon

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the entry on the German_cruiser_Emden (1925) please reconsider your rollback of local historical source reference. <Andrews, Silvie (January 22, 2019). "The (First) Time Nazis Marched in Portland". Oregon Historical Society.> (Parsecboy, in your rollback you wrote "(blog post, not particularly high quality source, and redundant to Hildebrand et al. anyway)".

  • Redundant? Whatever the mention of the ship's Portland visit in the Hildebrand source, this new 2019 reference provides historical details and insights on the ship's reception in its official Portland, OR 1936 visit.
  • Quality? The level of Andrew's post is far above a blog. The Portland sources is well researched and documented. A footnote provides a lead to the primary archive sources:"The Oregonian coverage of the Kreuzer Emden’s visit was extensive between December 22, 1935, and February 13, 1936 — I consulted nearly thirty articles for this post. I have called out specific article dates only to cite quoted material and notable events. Digitized Oregonian pages are available through America’s News–Historical and Current..."

BTW in the de.wiki the ship's entry has a trivia section. Although the political history of its pre-war tour is not trivial, the reference has been added there.[2] <Zu Emdens offiziellem Besuch in Portland, Oregon, USA im Jahr 1936, hier ein Link zur Archivrecherche der Oregon Historical Society.>

The ship's local reception in Portland 1936 is certainly within Wiki's focus. Wiki is not limited to being a naval encyclopedia. This source is worthy of inclusion in the entry, although I would agree perhaps requires elaboration from the source. anyhow. -Yohananw (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's what it boils down to: it's still a blog post (note where it's hosted on the OHS website) and it's written by someone who does not appear to be an established expert (as required by our sourcing policies when it comes to accepting stuff like this). As far as I can tell, all the author has published are a couple of articles in her employer's quarterly publication. It doesn't matter that she used a bunch of sources, or that it's well written, it matters what her credentials are; anyone at the reliable sources noticeboard will tell you that. Unless she has a bunch of publications in relatively high quality journals that don't show up in worldcat, then we can't use it as a source. At best, it could go in an external links section. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I think the reference in OHS blog is reliable and relevant enough to be with the ship’s pre-war global tour, I accept your suggestion to put Andrews 2019 into External Links. (As to its parallel deletion in the ship's German language de.wiki entry's trivia section by subject editor expert user:Wonderland2001, I can’t disagree there.)

I would note that presently the author Silvie Andrews is Museum Director, Gresham Historical Society, greshamhistorical.org (which may equate to county historian). She holds a BA and MA in archival history studies. In fact, Andrews wrote me (email 27.5.22): "I can confirm that content on the OHS blog is subject to fairly rigorous fact-checking and that we were especially careful with this article, given its sensitive political nature. Despite that, I can understand how the informal tone might have raised a red flag."

(BTW the number of protesters who were arrested during the Emden's visit was given as 11 in the Madera Tribune, some of whose names can be found online in a Reed College yearbook.)-Yohananw (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the link.
I wonder if there's an article somewhere on Nazism in the US where this incident might be included. I looked at some of the relevant articles (like German American Bund, Friends of New Germany, Nazism in the Americas, etc.) to see if there was a suitable existing article, but didn't come across anything. Creating an article from scratch is a bit beyond my area of expertise though. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

USS Curlew (1862)

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I recently polished this one up to remove the DANFS copy-paste and work in a couple other sources that shed more detail on a couple instances. I hope to sporadically go through and polish up a DANFS copy-paste every so often. Do you think it would be worthwhile to try to send some of the very minor ones like Curlew through GAN, or would MILHIST B-class be a better bet because of the general insignificance of most of these? Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Hog Farm - I'd say yeah, that would be fine at GA. Just as an example, when I put Italian cruiser Pietro Micca through GAN back in 2016, the article looked like this, which was a fair bit shorter than Curlew. I think so long as the article is reasonably complete with the sources that exist, there's not much more you can be expected to do. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I'll give the Official Records another perusal and than list it for GAN. (Having exhausted DANFS, Silverstone, and the Civil War Naval Chronology I'm not expecting to find much of significance) Hog Farm Talk 14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good! Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Willing to step back

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm going to take a step back and willing to avoid an ANI that would have to involve anyone. I've argued my case, and so have you and the others at those Tfd nominations. I did not drive anyone off of Wikipedia. I've been wrongfully accused of certain claims simply because I've explained numerous times the issues with those templates. I had no opposition to those red links being created into articles. But sadly, nobody listened nor soughtt to fix them. I don't know how often you participate at Tfd's, but NENAN is cited often, and while not a policy, it serves as a guide when addressing issues with templates that have been nominated for deletion. You're free to disagree as you have, but NENAN is invoked for a reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

NENAN and WP:NBFILL are simply to navboxes as deletionists and inclusionists are to articles themselves; that there are partisans who support NENAN and that those partisans frequent TfD isn't evidence of anything beyond their own existence. If there was broad community consensus one way or the other, WP:NAVBOX would more definitively lay out criteria. Instead, it's left vague to allow the community latitude in how and when to use navboxes. WP:SHIPS has long-established (i.e., more than a decade) consensus that navboxes like the ones you are trying to delete are valid; there are probably hundreds of navboxes that fail your 5-link litmus test. Part of what you're running up against is the reaction of people who've been writing these articles for literally a decade or two (I've been writing articles on ships here since 2007, for example) who aren't taking kindly to outsiders, who don't understand the topic or how things have been done for many years, trying to tell us how to follow a guideline that deliberately gives us flexibility. Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Barberry

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw you commented at the TFD in response to my creation of USCGC Barberry. It's since had a notability tag slapped on it. My instinct, based on some other searches I've done, suggests that the vessel is most likely notable, although I'm going on a several day wikibreak for my sanity and won't be able to address the tag. You've got more experience with 20th-century ships that I do - do you think it's non-notable? I will not be offended if the article is deleted/redirected. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd think it's more than likely fine, though @Cuprum17: might be able to give you a better answer, as they work in the USCG area a fair bit. I don't have the book, but U.S. Coast Guard Cutters and Craft, 1946-1990 would probably be all we need to satisfy notability, as the ship is mentioned on a couple of pages there (and based on Scheina's other books, I'd presume there's enough coverage there). Cuprum can probably help us there as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Application for mentorship

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am looking for a mentor. I wanna go through a course under your tutelage for a period of time that you determine. After which I will be given rollback privileges. It will be a honor to learn under you. Cheers. Amaekuma (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Voice of Clam's advice here is good and I'd suggest you go that route. I likewise don't really have the amount of time that would be needed to mentor another editor. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III scheduled for TFA

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is to let you know that the SMS Kaiser Friedrich III article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 1, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I'll give it a look over but it should be in pretty good shape. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

fair enough

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

your call then, status of the pre-wrecked item is a new one for me... JarrahTree 13:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of sense; you might as well change the short description of every dead person to "Collection of bones and varying stages of putrefying flesh in a box". You would agree that would not be the best way to describe them, no? Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with your line of thought, but hey, no big deal... JarrahTree 13:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want to explain how the final condition of a subject is the best way to describe it, go ahead. But that doesn't seem to jive with the guidance at WP:SHORTDESC. The example at Abraham Lincoln is "16th President of the United States", not "Man shot in the head at Ford Theater". Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
In most cases shortdesc that I do are for places, and things, I see your point, you have made it, fair enough JarrahTree 13:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. Specifically, we need your help to review articles that you nominated to determine if they still meet the featured article criteria. If you have any questions, please ask on the working group’s talk page. Hope to see you there! Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I know I have a few on the very old list, so I'll be happy to help where I can. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've asked for a third opinion since we obviously can't reach a consensus ourselves. GansMans (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

BB 1 & 2

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Moved from my tp
WP:HOUNDING

I suggest you think very carefully about how you proceed from here. Parsecboy (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I edited a couple of USN pages, like I've been doing for years. Surely I don't need to explain watchlists to you? Or the practice of wp:brd? (Or edit warring for that matter?) Or "hounding"? Or how silly an admin looks coming to my talk page either in violation or plain ignorance of all these policies and guidelines... just to threaten me? Take it to the article talk page(s) like you were supposed to, or the project talk page (again). But regardless, stay off my talkpage. - wolf 02:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Do me a favor and explain why you have articles you've never edited on your watchlist. Editing an article solely to revert someone you disagree with is pretty textbook hounding. As for BRD, we already have discussed this issue. The fact that you're plainly misinformed gives you no justification to disrupt articles. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Continued

I could just as easily accuse you of deliberately disrupting those pages, just to make a point. They are both FA articles, with long established content (supported by consensus). Your proposal at wt:ships is not going the way you wanted (which begs the question: if you suddenly don't give a rat's ass about "local consensus"... why post that proposal there in the first place?) Either way, when that proposal closes as 'no consensus', we both know you are just going to bring it up again at MOS anyway, so you should've gone there now, instead of making those unjustified reverts and further disrupting those articles, all just to suit your own ends. Those articles need to be restored, and you need to go about making changes the correct way. Despite your attitude to the contrary, you are no better than anyone else here. - wolf 02:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm no better than anyone else here, but on this point, I am right and you are wrong, which is something you need to come to terms with. Hull numbers aren't part of a ship's name, full stop. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, FAs are required to follow the MoS, so if you want the hull numbers directly after the name, you need to get the MoS changed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's the fundamental issue: the burden to justify an exception to the MoS is on you, not me. And thus far, the only arguments I've seen advanced are either wrong on their face (namely, that hull numbers are part of a ship's name), or amount to an assertion that hull numbers are a special disambiguator (for reasons that have never been articulated, probably because this idea has no basis in reality; it thus has no merit). The argument that because specialist sources use the hull numbers so we should too is the specialist source fallacy and is equally meritless. So you're left with the fact that you like them, which isn't a valid reason to ignore the MoS. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

At Risk of Edit Warring

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

You know full well making edits while a discussion is happening is not allowed. Until a consensus is reached, you are not allowed to restore your version of an edit. This is the second time you've been warned. Do it again and you're at risk of being reported for edit warring. GansMans (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me enlighten you to something, friend. MOS:FIRST represents the existing, project-wide consensus. Whatever is decided at WT:SHIPS is irrelevant, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override project-wide consensus. If you don't stop WP:HOUNDING my edits, you will likely be blocked for it again. Oh, and one other thing; WP:QUO is an WP:ESSAY, it has no weight. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it holds weight. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it holds no water. It just means you don't accept anybody else's reasoning or POV. It's amazing that you think no one else's reasons have any value, but all of yours are 100% not up for debate and anybody who disagreees is either acting in bad faith, edit-warring, and wasting your time. You do understand you can't just bully people into agreement right? How is anybody supposed to cooperate with you when you don't compromise, don't show empathy, insult other editors, talk down to everybody, and just ignore everyone else and make your edits stick anyway? GansMans (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a WP:POLICY, a WP:GUIDELINE, and an WP:ESSAY are? Do yourself a favor and click on all three of those links, read them, and then come back and tell me how binding an essay is.
Look, to be blunt, you lost my patience weeks ago when you baldly engaged in bad faith discussion tactics on Talk:USS Torsk. You repeatedly moved the goalposts (and then refused to admit it even after I pointed it out in perfectly clear terms), repeatedly WP:SEALIONed (even after I pointed out what you were doing), and (I can only assume deliberately) misrepresented what I had said to you. Again, if I had spent the last few weeks lying about what you said, evading your arguments because I knew I had nothing to rebut them, and kept demanding you give me answers that I've already given you, do you think you would not become exasperated? Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You were condescending from your very first reply. Quit acting like you had any intention of actually being cooperative. You were demeaning, insulting, passive-aggressive, and just being an overall prick right from the start. You even straight up called me an idiot basically. And that was before I learned that's just how you treat people on here and that it wasn't exclusive to me. You're just not a good person.

Here we are again 2 weeks later and you are still insulting me and being argumentative.

I don't think you realize what you're doing. You know I'm a real person right? Not just text on your PC screen? I have actual feelings. You're completely desensitized to what you're saying to me. And you don't care. Because that's just who you are. And it's sad. GansMans (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My first response to you in no way demeaned or insulted you, nor did my second comment. My third comment, where I stated that you "you don't seem to know what you're talking about" was not an insult, but a simple statement of fact; if you think hull numbers are part of a ship's name, you don't know what you're talking about. They aren't. Full stop.
As for what you seem to think is insulting you, you asserted that essays are in some way binding, which is in no way correct; you are a newish user; why do you think you understand how Wiki rules work better than I do? Why are you so sensitive about your inexperience that you perceive insults in a simple pointer to the relevant policy pages?
I also have feelings, as you may or may not believe. Dealing with someone who, for weeks, refuses to admit that they're mistaken, that they've engaged in bad faith discussion tactics (purposefully or not), or even engages with my comments directly is incredibly frustrating. It's what makes me conclude that you aren't editing in good faith. Can you honestly and directly reply to this comment of mine from 2 weeks ago? You ignored it at the time and haven't addressed it since.
If you think I have a track record of being a dick to people, go look at my interactions with others in literally any other thread at WT:SHIPS, or on my talk page here. I've got 40-some archives here, go through and skim a few and see how often I behave as you believe that I do. And if you think TWC is a good judge of character, I suggest you look at his block log; you might be surprised about his history. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


You're not even apologizing. You're actually trying to justify talking down to me.

The fact that several editors over the last week have said something along the lines of, "An administrator of your longevity and experience should know this and shouldn't be behaving like this" speaks volumes. I couldn't believe it either that someone with almost 2 decades of experience on Wikipedia behaves like a child.

You're self-righteous and think you're always right and that everyone else is wrong. You're so self-righteous in fact that even when it's black and white and an inch from your nose that you're wrong, you just double down. Your interpretations of Wikipedia’s rules are right, and everyone else's is wrong. Your opinion is the only one that matter, everyone else's is irrelevant (evident by the entire "Why bother...?" section where it was pointed out that the whole discussion was pointless because you weren't listening to anyone else anyway).

And your instinctive finger pointing to TWC when your character was criticized speaks volumes. Instead of defending yourself, you deflect attention because you don't know what else to do.

You've insulted editors who weren't even initially invloved in this discussion because all you do is attack people. Editors who had no horse in this race still had shit flung at them by you because you have no self control or any resemblance of self awareness. You've criticized editors for their use of "tactics" and then turned around and did the exact same thing. But you never realized it. And when your hypocrisy was pointed out, you probably didn't see that either.

When the discussion wasn't going your way and you weren't getting the support you wanted, you just left the discussion and started vandalizing a dozen pages with your preferred version, which you know full well is not how Wikipedia works. Then you threatened me for "edit-warring" trying to clean up your mess. You don't play by the rules, you play by your own rules. And that's the icing on the cake.

I will continue to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships if I see it fit to do so. But this discussion is over. GansMans (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How, oh how, did I know you would again ignore a simple request to explain your actions? Indeed, we are done here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been editing WP for a decade or so, so it's always a bit of a surprise to run across someone who's been an admin for that long and whose name I don't recognize, but indeed it appears that there are only a tiny handful of pages we've both edited. In any case, thanks for the efficient and effective resolution! --JBL (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I don't tend to spend much time in the typical admin areas these days - for a while I was one of the regulars at WP:RM, but that was years ago. I'm happy to help with the BlauGraf situation, it's surprising that he was allowed to try to push his agenda for as long as he was. He must have flown just enough under the radar that no one noticed until now. Good catch! Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsecboy/Archive_44&oldid=1103125227"