Hello Crow, 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]
Hi Crow. I'm dropping by just to thank you for your work on edit filters. Your work has been immensely helpful at countering some of our most persistent vandals and spammers on Wikipedia. You're awesome, so keep doing what you do! Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: Thanks, I appreciate the thought! :) CrowCaw 13:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crow, I'm sure we talked before (I think it was sorting out copyvios on Trafalgar Square, if I recall correctly), but I've done a quick spin round your basic stats and in my opinion you should probably be an administrator. Or, to put it another away, we are starved of admins who are good with copyvios and coming up with creative ways of stopping long-term abusers, and could really do with some more. What say you? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm not sure that's something I'm interested in at the moment though. I barely have time to keep up with the copyright work as it stands. I do recognize that at some point I end up making more work for others by not having the bit (ref the 2 revdel requests so far today that I've put in) but I don't think I'm necessarily at that point (though the admins I'm offloading on may feel differently!). CrowCaw 18:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: re-pinging so it works this time. CrowCaw 18:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Crow, I wanted to respond to your comment on EFN but the discussion is now closed. I've been around wikis in general for the better part of a decade now (yikes), and that word has permeated our wiki-vocabulary. Not even just on enwiki, but everywhere. But I've never been convinced that it's the best word to use.
The words we choose to use matter. In this case, "need" is defined by a Google search as "(to) require (something) because it is essential or very important" or "expressing necessity or obligation". Do either of those phrases accurately reflect what we mean by "need" when we say it on RfXs here? I would argue that it certainly does not, and so perhaps we should change the word we use to reflect something a bit more realistic. If we look at someone having a potential use for the tools, rather than a need for them, that lowers the language requirements of granting that person the rights that they are requesting.
I know the background here, and I can't change it. But what I can do is make comments like I did on EFN when I feel that the word has been misused from what the intended purpose was. It's not the fault of the person using it; the word implies that a candidate should have a strong reason for having the right they are requesting. And I'm not opposed to that. But I get concerned when we start turning away good-faith volunteers who can obviously be trusted with the access level they are requesting, and who have that potential use for the tools, by referencing this bad word of need. Hopefully that puts my comment into context :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: Believe me I know, and I agree completely. Many times I've seen the indignation (oft mistaken for arrogance) at AfD by an academic or author after being told they're "not notable" (e.g. "So I'm insignificant, unimportant, not even worthy of being noticed?"), or a researcher being told their blog is "unreliable" (e.g. "Are you saying the research is falsified, or I'm a liar?"). These are the great pitfalls of the terms-of-art we use. "Need" is another that's used all over WP, and I can see how it comes across as arrogant and presumptive (e.g. "Who are you to tell me what I need?"). I certainly was not trying to appear that way. Perhaps the other synonym I used in that discussion, "use case" is a better fit overall, as it does convey the same thing but in a more positive connotation. I think effecting change there would have to start at the policy level, so things like this where "need" is used in the actual description could be changed first, then the discussions that follow would have to weigh against that term. Otherwise we're kind of stuck: permission-x is stated to require "need", so the onus is on the applicant to show the "need" and all commenters will weigh in against that "need", and so on. CrowCaw 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion should be focused around whether the applicant meets the policy requirements. But we are free to interpret the "need" specified in the policy as specifically or broadly as we please. I aim for a broad interpretation, and bring up the wording issue as a means of showing that we don't need to go with as strict an interpretation as the user had suggested. (I also don't like to call out specific people usually, but in that case they had addressed the supporters and so I thought might as well!)
You make a good point about "not notable" as well. I think that "inclusion criteria" would be a much more positive way of describing what we currently call notability. Not sure how to fix unreliable though :P -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) I made this exact point to someone who wrote into Wikimedia yesterday. Interpret our "not notable" as suggesting their work is insignificant, the exact word they used. I emphasized that that wasn't the case but I suspect it fell flat because the main concern was the article about them was deleted and I didn't restore it. However I like the thought of using a term such as "inclusion criteria".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crow! I notice MusikAnimal asked you about this in passing back in April, and I wanted to encourage you to throw your hat in the ring too! I think you'd make a great admin, and have all the qualities RfA voters are looking for. I'd be happy to (co-)nominate you if you're interested and think the extra tools would be useful to you. I definitely think you could do good work with them. Sam Walton (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 and There'sNoTime: Thanks for the confidence! I'll think on it, as you're the 2nd/3rd to bring it up in a week. Along the lines of my conversation with MA that you reference, I do recognize that at some point it becomes sensible due to the amount of work I offload to admins (revdel, histmerge, checking deleted revs, etc). CrowCaw 17:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I had to really push you just to get edit filter manager! I don't want to push you into anything else, but if you do decide you want to move forward with an RfA, sign me up as a (co-)nom :) — MusikAnimaltalk 17:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can count me in too, obviously, per the above conversation. Seriously, we are starved of admins who are good with copyvios and the backlogs are terrifying. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1! I've only talked to you a few times (over email, I do believe), and I think you'd do great things as an admin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crow, 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:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
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) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insert usual message about minds thinking alike. I just created ?Oumuamua. After creating it I realize that was exactly your advice. Who knows, maybe I read your advice and it registered in the back of my mind but in any event, unless there is some new issue, I think the problem is solved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crow. 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.
Hi, thank you for defending me that I am not a sock of SKS at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw, the user was clearly a notorious of disruptive editing that make the nonsense unblock request at my talk page, I may try to familiarize about his behavior and strike down his mischievous of sock farm as well. BTW, wish you have a prosperous of Happy New Year! Cheers! :) SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, why do we KEEP having to have this conversation?[edit]
I and many others would like to nominate you to RfA. This has come up before. Have you thought about it over the past four months? I disagree that you're not well rounded enough — you've shown skill at all the things we like to see, even if you're not doing it right now, and you are stellar at CV. Having spent the past hour or so going through your activity here, I will gladly draft up a nomination statement if you're willing. That is, of course, assuming I can convince everyone else (MusikAnimal, Samwalton9, There'sNoTime, Ritchie333, and Anarchyte) to give me the chance. Think about it, then do the right thing and say yes. 15:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As always I appreciate the vote of confidence. I will say that now that my usual winter lull is over, I shall give it serious consideration. CrowCaw 20:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just checkin' in, seeing if you're still interested. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 10:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, there have been loads of G12 candidates at CAT:CSD in the past week, and WP:CCI continues at its lethargic place. I've just done two RfAs that passed with over 90% support each, and in retrospect they didn't seem it was too bad a thing. So, can we drag you to RfA yet? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking on it Ritchie333. Right now logistics (travel, imminent computer failure, etc) is the biggest hurdle. CrowCaw 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've got something drafted, so just say the word. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I don't want to rush things - if and when you indicate you want to run (which can be weeks, months, years, whenever) I'll do a far more thorough check and come up with a bunch of things we can expect to happen at the RfA. Seemed to work really well for 331dot and Larry. The comment I was making at WT:ORCP was more that there are far more prosaic reasons we don't have many admins coming forward than "inflated standards" or "serial opposers".
If so, the way to do it is to note it in the talk page or to add Template:copyvio to the page; the edit summary is for a summary of the edit, not for comments about the article (with a trivial edit so that you have an edit summary in which to make the comment). Guy Harris (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Harris: I'm saying that there was an un-attributed internal copy on that page so I added the minimum attribution required by our license. Yes the Template is a good additional way to note such an event, but the Attribution portion of the license requires attribution be given as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors, which WMF has interpreted to mean via Edit Summary, as the edit history is the only place where contributing authors are credited. So yes, standard practice for attributing previously un-attributed copies is via a null edit and attribution in the edit summary. CrowCaw 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our favorite crackpot has slightly altered his approach over the past couple of days. See the edits for 64.134.241.30(talk·contribs·WHOIS)107.77.195.186(talk·contribs·WHOIS) as examples. He started with his usual target of Luna plus his most recent windmill over redistricting, but the 64.134 account went a bit crazy today. There are a couple of consistent cases mentioned, any chance you could review and possibly tweak the filter? The primary targets have been protected and some decent ip ranges were blocked, but you've seen how persistent this guy can be. Appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: Tweaked, I'll keep a close eye out. Thanks for the heads up! CrowCaw 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you initially removed an edit from Kristen DiMera as a copyright violation and then restored it.
Your edit summary said "Checking what * when". I'm guessing you determined that there was a reverse copy going on but I haven't quite sussed out how or what you mean by your edit summary. For my own it edification can you share with me what you concluded?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: I saw that content on 2 sources, one a wiki with a compatible license (added 2017) and the other a copyrighted source (added 2012). I just need to Wayback them to see who had it first, and it looks like the copyrighted site did. I've tagged them for RD1 now accordingly. CrowCaw 13:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I now see that I stumbled upon this while you were in the middle of your investigation. I've completed the revdel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I now undertsand the edit summary :) (FYI ignore the ping to my talk page, Diannaa helped me out) --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry, I was going to look up the articles I was going to reference and make sure I got the name right, which I did not. It was Steven Galloway, not Andrew. By the way, here are the two best references I was going to post, until I can find an online version of the report created by Mary Ellen Boyd:
if you want to plug those in to whatever I wrote that would be grand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.137.159.131 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@64.137.159.131: Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that either of those sources will work for that section in the Maillard article. The first source is clearly an opinion piece (the link even has the word in its path), while the second is a first-person account by Galloway of his recollection of events. The second might possibly be used to support a quote of Galloway, but we generally shy away from primary sources like this. Neither source can be used to support a phrase like ...Maillard was instrumental in the reputational lynching of Andrew Galloway.... We'd need an independent reliable source, and even then the tone has to be much more neutral. And lastly, unless reliable sources consider this a memorable event in Maillard's life, including it in his article would run afoul of giving undue weight to minor events. (I'm not saying that this was or was not a "minor event", but only that we'd need reliable sources that say it is in order to include it. I hope this helps, CrowCaw 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok thanks, I got it. Sorry, this is my first time making an edit on Wikipedia, I will try and find that copy of the report by Judge Boyd and some of the more in depth reporting that was done on the issue. If you would be so kind as to clarify a few points for me, when you state that the tone has to be more neutral did you mean the source being used or what I wrote? also I am a little confused as to the differentiation between a "memorable event" and a "minor event", certainly given the quantity of press coverage of this series of events this would qualify under memorable, but to define as a major event I need to find a reliable source - such as third party reporting on the issue - that would state outright that this was in some way a major event in his life? or is it enough that while this event may have been minor in his (Maillard's) life, it was a major event in a larger social ecosystem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.137.159.131 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also! Is the minor event issue because of where I placed the paragraph? Would it be more acceptable in a different separate section entitled "Steven Galloway controversy" or something along those lines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.137.159.131 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Yes, WP:NPOV requires to present information in a neutral tone here on Wikipedia. The source may or may not be neutrally-worded; it then falls on us the editors to make sure a fact is stated neutrally, without opinionated or inflaming terminology. Neutrally-worded articles have been written about some really horrible people that just state the facts in a cold detached manner. Next, the threshold for what is and isn't a minor event is rather vague as you might expect. WP:UNDUE has some general guidelines about that, but in the end it comes down to the question of whether one event warrants a special mention given the overall coverage of the article, and whether that event as received significant coverage. (The sources don't have to say "It was a memorable/major event...") In the Malliard case, the article is 1100 words or so, covering his whole life and career. Adding ~100 words (or 10% of the article size) to discuss an event that from his perspective may have just been a routine event (even though the other party may not think so) seems like Undue weight. Again, I've not looked into this deeply enough to determine any of these questions.
WP:RS explains the type of sources needed to support claims like this. Essentially we're looking for sources that have a reputation for fact-checking, peer-review, etc, to ensure facts are presented correctly. And if it does warrant inclusion in the article, then you are correct that a new section devoted to that would be appropriate, rather than in an existing section.
A good place to bring it up would be the "Teahouse", a place where volunteers help new editors navigate situations like these. I'll be glad to help here as I can, though again I've not researched this well enough at the moment to assist on the actual determination. If you run into a brick wall, let me know and I'll try to devote some time to it. Thanks! CrowCaw 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't ping to an anonym, I hope that he might read this: The difference between "memorable event" and "minor event" is that memorable events are covered much broadly by such reliable sources as BBC and CNN (to name a few), while minor events are covered by local or gossip sites such as US Weekly and Daily Mail. For more info please read WP:ONEEVENT, this guideline might clear your mind regarding sources. As for separate section, you can create one. Some articles even have subsections. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering if you are planning on semi-protecting this article. According to its history its better to protect it rather then constantly reverting an anonym. Not to mention that there were two anonyms which were actively attacking this article today. What's your opinion on it?--Biografer (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to protect it, but I am missing one critical "bit" :) CrowCaw 20:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If ONLY there were a way to solve that... ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's been requested at RFPP though. CrowCaw 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The link shows only your name and your "rights". Like, I don't see it as "fun" to constantly revert two anonyms. Its rather hectic. Protecting it, will just get your hands free to do other, more "fun" stuff. Unless, in your opinion chasing and revert vandals is "fun"? In my opinion its a headache. ;)--Biografer (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the link is that I'm not an Admin, and only Admins can protect pages. CrowCaw 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O' OK. I assumed as such that you are not an admin, otherwise I wouldn't have posted a suggestion on your talkpage. :) Since its already posted by someone else, that's already a good sign. Nothing to worry about, but the sooner, the better.--Biografer (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How odd, as soon as I mention semi-protectionthe vandalism continued. I even told the anonym on his talkpage that he pretty much laughing at the wrong thing. As far as I know, we semi-protect articles from anonyms, not from registered users.--Biografer (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you recently accepted a pending change to August 20. I looked for a source for this date of birth in Keith Froome that I could add to the DOY page and discovered that the material you accepted was false.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions - for exactly this reason. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and fixed the info added to that page so it is no longer incorrect and added a reliable source to back it up.
Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making my requested edit filter preventing indexing of userpages! Keep up your good edit filter work! SemiHypercube✎ 12:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been enabled and unmodified since May. Are you still using it for testing? For long-term things I'd recommend creating a new filter. — MusikAnimaltalk 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm going to be bold and takeover the filter for some public testing I'm doing. Hope this okay! — MusikAnimaltalk 20:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All yours MusikAnimal! It was a long term test anyway, but nothing that can't be repurposed as needed. Thanks for the notice! CrowCaw 19:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure you saw the recent email to the mailing list, which regards an addition you made to this filter. Hope all is well, — MusikAnimaltalk 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, thanks. Was out of town for a bit. CrowCaw 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Hello, Crow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominga Velasco (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFGtalk 16:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, was the proposed "Is best" filter ever implemented? The EFR seems to have been archived without anything happening. [UsernameNeeded] 11:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Username Needed: I ran it under log-only mode for a few weeks, and the amount of false-positives was too high to be useful. A much tighter search pattern would be needed, but that would then make it too tight to catch more than a single vandal's one edit. I think leaving that to the Huggle users will be sufficient. CrowCaw 12:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canada-theat-stub. Since you had some involvement with the Canada-theat-stub redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crow. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've heard you are not interested in adminship, but are very, very qualified.
So, please stare at the image and repeat aloud: "I want to be an administrator. I want to be an administrator. I want to be an administrator. I want to be an administrator. I want to be an administrator. I want to be an administrator."
shakes it off* Hmm, another person who's opinion I value thinks I should run the gauntlet. I am considering it, though I'm in a period of some inactivity due to Real LifeTM. Once that normalizes and I can get back to my normal rate, then I'd likely move forward. But thanks for the sentiment! CrowCaw 15:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Crow. Understood. I'm glad to hear you are considering it. Do enjoy real life, and ensure that real life includes puppies. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
w00t! ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what Anna, stick that on Amory's talk page, replacing "administrator" with "bureaucrat". Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey/ hi/ yo/ hidilyho
(not sure of the protocol in the wiki-community - do we use call signs?)
I'm also not sure if I am posting in the right place, so feel free to delete if I'm way off.
Here's my prob(lem): I work for the European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) and I naively asked a colleague to update our Wiki page (laughter ensues!!!).
Perhaps a year later, I see that we no longer have a page on Wikipedia and worse, we've been blacklisted for incorrectly trying to update the content (sorry about that). I'm not really sure what follows, is there a way to get the old stub back? It was out of date but better than nothing. Do you think someone might consider our institute worth referencing? (we are already referenced in some of our members wiki pages). A lot of our research members are renowned academics, including 3 Nobel Prize winners. It saddens me that we have fallen out (?) with the wiki folk or that my colleague has been blacklisted for something I asked her to do. Every time I see some obscure Wikipedia page, I am tempted to throw something out the window in despair.
Any ideas? Should I abandon my Wiki dreams and move on?
Ismiserua (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi, Ismiserua, I think Crow is pretty busy in real life (see above) and not around here very much, so I thought I'd see if I can help answer this. The good news: the page was deleted as a copyright violation, and not because Wikipedia editors have agreed that there should not be such a page (that would have made the prospects much more bleak). The bad news: there was not one single independent reliable source in the version that was deleted; if it were to be re-created, it would not survive for more than a few days. If you want to take a run at a new version, there are a couple of things you should do: start the page as a draft, at Draft:European Corporate Governance Institute; and make an appropriate disclosure that you are an employee, preferably on your user page, User:Ismiserua, and also on the talk-page of your draft. After that, everything you write must of course be entirely in your own words. However, if I may offer advice: before you do any of that, read our notability guidelines for organisations, and check that you are able to identify enough (say, five or six) solid independent sources which discuss yours in depth and in detail; sources such as books from reputable presses, academic journals, major national newspapers or magazines are ideal; the publications and web pages of the organisation itself and other closely-associated bodies count for exactly nothing. If you can't identify those sources, it may be that Wikipedia will not have a page on the European Corporate Governance Institute (as it does not on innumerable other organisations), and that time spent trying to create one would simply be wasted. I'm happy to try to field any questions you may have, perhaps on my talk-page rather than here (the "talk" link in the signature that follows). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers! Thanks for your guidance on this. As it took me an embarrassing amount of time to work out how to reply to your message, I don't think I'm cut out for this world. Wiki-world. The other one, I'm doing just fine in so far. I can't immediately think of any publications that have been written about us 'in depth and detail' so maybe we're just not meant to have a wikipedia entry. I can live with this, depressing as it is. We're well known in the circles that count (amongst the academics). As for academic journals, we have our own publication series (The ECGI Working Paper Series) and many of the papers there are then subsequently published in top journals. SSRN is a distribution partner of ours (there's a link to our old website on theirs. Note to self: contact SSRN to update this) I just hoped that we could maybe go back to having the paragraph that we used to have on Wikipedia for years before it all went wrong. If this is irretrievable, so be it. I think Crow was originally helping us with advice on this as were you, but I think we've taken enough of your time. Ismiserua (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Justlettersandnumbers, I had a further thought on this. I understand that Wikipedia is no place for advertising or self-promotion (which is not my aim) but rather, it is an encyclopaedic reference site. So maybe we could just mention that our organisation exists? This is a fact that can easily be proved by the public records at the Moniteur Belge in Belgium <ref>http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv/tsvf.htm<ref>. Our organisation references are: BE0477256133 (ECGI) founded in 2002; BE0547683081 (GCGC) founded in 2014; BE0542700944 (ECGRF) founded in 2013. For info: GCGC = Global Corporate Governance Colloquia, an annual conference established by twelve leading universities (4 in Europe, 4 in the US, 4 in Asia). ECGRF = The European Corporate Governance Research Foundation, founded by ECGI with Investor AB and BP plc. Do you think I could create a draft page (stub) for each of them saying that they exist, mention the registered address and Chair information and then reference the Moniteur Belge? (it seems more reliable than citing news articles). Thanks for your advice Ismiserua (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding speedy deletion of page Operation Greens[edit]
My issue is regarding the speedy deletion of article Operation Greens. I have written this page with the help from the authentic sources like articles from reputed newspapers: The Indian Express, The Hindu BusinessLine, Economic Times and various government websites like Vikaspedia, ministry of food processing industries and finally PIB. Not everything is copied from PIB except the introduction and strategy part. I have even changed the wordings and sequences at many places. The data cannot be changed so I had to write them as it is. The article is written after referring to many sources. May I know where does the article falter. Ketan rana123 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ketan rana123: Please see This Link and you will see the amount of content that exactly duplicates the online source. The sources it matches do not allow their content to be re-used or modified, so their license is not acceptable for content to be pasted in verbatim here. While facts themselves are ok to include, specific word choice and word order is considered a copyrightable aspect of the text. Note that simple changing a few words so that the amount of red on the link goes down is still not the best approach, as that can be considered too closely paraphrased. It is best to completely re-write it in your own words, as if you were explaining it to a friend. CrowCaw 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the entire page in my own words. The percentage in that given link is now at 28.6% with the title "violation unlikely". So kindly help by removing all the tags from that page. And thank you for your invaluable suggestions. Ketan rana123 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crow. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Crow: I've redacted the items requested on the article. If you have a moment, could you look at the page history and check whether I've gotten all the precise revisions you asked for? I didn't think to include the edit summaries/descriptions but if those should be included, please let me know. Copyvio text has been removed. If everything looks good, you can remove the template yourself or I'll do it if you wish. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Ironie: Thanks for the RD! All the copyvio looks to be handled. Technically the revision by Cluebot and CLCStudent can be un-hidden, as those edits had removed the copyvio. They didn't add any new content though so attribution-wise its probably ok. I prefer to RD as few revs as possible though. Thanks again! CrowCaw 16:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your work on copyright issues. Lately I have run into a serious problem: I have been doing an extremely high proportion of the reviewing of the listings at CopyPatrol, having done 50 to 75 reviews daily for the last few weeks. It's not realistic to think that I can keep this up indefinitely, as it consumes many hours each day, and it's not good for me to spend so much time in front of the computer. And if for some reason I become unavailable the results will be dire. What I'm hoping to do is recruit a small group of experienced users who visit Copypatrol daily and clear 5 to 10 cases each, to help spread the burden around a little bit, as well as create a cadre of people who can take over if for some reason I am not able to edit any more. Since you've got some experience in copyright clean-up, I am inviting you to consider visiting the page on a regular basis – even daily, like I do! – and clearing a number of cases. It would be a really big help if you could! Thanks for your time, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do what I can! CrowCaw 22:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crow! Whatever you have time for, that would be great. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used to do a few now and then, I can try to get back in the game with what little help I can do. That being said, Crow, there's a veryobviousthingyou can do to help out even more. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 14:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle! Unfortunately my recent inactivity will likely be a disqualifier in many eyes. These 3 months are historically crushingly busy in RL, but who knows what may happen. Thanks for still keeping me in mind though! CrowCaw 18:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: I stumbled upon this! I have been doing a bit of copyvio work on the new pages feed. I would be more than happy to do a bit more if you happened to become unavailable. Crow or yourself are more than welcome to contact me about this. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Willbb234. It's great to know that you will be available to chip in should I we need help! — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For any who care. PC went all exploded and had to wait on tax refund to replace it. Hope to get back into the swing of things soon. CrowCaw 00:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I don't have great experience when it comes to edit filters, so I was wondering if you could explain what part of the regex doesn't work as intended (for any future regex I write). (By the way, the "nowiki" begin and end line are just there to prevent the page from being listed in CAT:CSD.) I do get why it may create many false positives (someone may at a word which has "apk" in it and if they then add a reference, it will be filtered); would you mind sharing your regex so I can see how you deal with the false positive issue? --MrClog (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - you tagged this for RD1 but didn't give a URL for this copyvio. I'm a busy gal - got stuff to knit and artisanal breads to bake and people to piss off, you know, so I didn't go to the Google machine to find one, but it was defamatory anyway so I suppressed it. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for the work on copyvios. :-) Katietalk 20:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Yes the URL itself had defamatory text in the string, so I didn't want to include it. I usually do but for that reason this one did require a click or 2 to investigate fully. Thanks! (And: Ooooo artisanal bread!) CrowCaw 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question, where do you put the request for EF that need changing? Thanks if you can help. The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 04:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you working on a fix? I was about to do something, but don't want to step on whatever (I suspect) you're doing right now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Crow, I re-read my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_helper and wanted to drop you a side note just in case what I said came off the wrong way. To be clear - I'm not holding a grudge against you (or any of the other EF regulars) about not getting EFH last year, it's just a very convenient example. I don't necessarily agree with your standards for EFH, but I know you have the best interests of the project at heart and I absolutely respect that. I'm somewhat annoyed by current EFH standards (and know I tend to get on a soapbox about it), but that is annoyance at the current system and consensus as a whole rather than annoyance at any one person or !vote. All this to say: if anything I've said comes off as personal, I really don't mean for it to be, and I apologize if it did seem like that. Best, GeneralNotability (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't take it as directed at me, other than simply replying to my comment. We all put the best interest of the project first, of course. My concern with this process in general is that, having seen what the EF does (as have you), I see how easy it could be to tear it all down. Some malefactor is unlikely to go through all the good work, contributions, policing, etc to get RFA, only to go on a short vandal spree and get emergency blocked. However, if a month of helping at EF/FP is all it takes, then that is its own problem. This is the main reason why I feel this permission should be hard to get. I don't know if EFM nomination is the way to go, or maybe a wider audience for EFH requests than the handful who watch the noticeboard... the latter has its own BEANS implications too. It's a tough line to walk and I hate coming across as the bad guy as a result. For the record, my oppose of you was very borderline, and is one I regret, and not because of the good you've done since. CrowCaw 17:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My edit's for my Userboxes page wont go in because it still says "unconstructive". The userboxes where taken from the gallery of Userboxes. What am I doing wrong? JennilyW (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JennilyW: It's the "rickroll" userbox that it doesn't like. Try adding the rest, and I'll see why the filter is being uncooperative. CrowCaw 23:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - PaulT+/C 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#EFH for CAPTAIN MEDUSA (2). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
