Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hey @ActivelyDisinterested. I needed a little help from you. A user named Eurik12 is constantly removing sourced text about a particular organisation again and again from the articles Kuki National Army, National Socialist Council of Nagaland, and Zomi Revolutionary Army on the name of "Fixed typo" and "Fixed grammar". Can we do something about him? 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 08:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can do, I'm just another editor. I suggest reporting them to WP:AIV, as they appear to only be here to vandalise articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your page is listed in Category:Pages with syntax highlighting errors. Could you please fix the errors so the page isn't listed there? Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My user pages are a dumping ground of stuff that may well be broken, please just leave it that way. I would suggest focusing on pages that aren't in user space. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on clearing out that category from all ~800 pages in it, so that actual errors are easier to find and fix. While I understand that sandboxes can contain errors while in development, there really isn't a reason not to fix this small error as it requires just adding lang="wikitext". Gonnym (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest requesting that the category to is better organised so that non-article pages aren't mixed in with non-main space pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an awful answer. Don't be surprised if other editors fix the same errors on your page over and over. Gonnym (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I will point give the same answer, please do not edit my user pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RememberOrwell. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Involve (think tank)# and discussions thereof. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. I asked you -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#c-RememberOrwell-20250315014100-ActivelyDisinterested-20250314140400 - "to specifically IDENTIFY the violating content - 'contentious comments about a living person' you are talking about. Do you contend 1 is contentious? 2? 3? 4?" - after you accused me of violating BLP with my last article edit. You refused. Instead you again accuse me of the same thing : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250315015100-RememberOrwell-20250315013800 even though I didn't make any further article edits, at all, in between. Also, BLPRESTORE says "Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." That applies to the material by Chalk that I repaired. You are insisting on being indiscriminate in your accusations. That is inappropriate conduct. Answer the question, at least WRT to #4, to start. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unable, oo determined not to understand policy. I suggest reading WP:BLP in it's entirety before making any additions to content that involves living people. You questions are not answered as they are irrelevant. Do not added negative content about living people to articles based on self-published and primary sources. As to BLPRESTORE you added BLP violating content to an article, that you did so as part of a revert is again irrelevant. You are solely responsible for the content that you add to an article, whether you type it out it or revert it back in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a peek at Shit flow diagram and perhaps figure out why some of the sfn templates aren't linking to the sources, like Peal 2020? Any help would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make and revert a couple of edits, I'll explain in a moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you either have to use all the authors in the cites (upto the first four), per my first edit[1], or if you don't want to use that you can setup the |ref= field using {{sfnref}}, per my second edit[2].
A couple of other things. The ref must match the cite exactly, so 'Blackette' will never match 'Blackett' (I checked the linked article, it should be without the 'e'). Also the "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" cite should always use the |ref= field, if you put "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" in the |last= field someone will come and remove it (as it's not a proper author). As most editors don't have the error messages on they won't know that they have broken the ref (it's a very common reason for broken links). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, you can just revert to whichever version of my edits you like - they both work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to get a chuckle out of being reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish used {{sfn}}, it wasn't very effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I tried my hand at an essay about (mostly) reliable sources alleged to have some sort of prejudice against persons or groups. Do you mind taking a quick look if I missed or misrepresented a community consensus on the topic? FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by 'hateful' can be ambiguous. A biased source with content that an editor or group hates will usually be found reliable, but content that is written in hate is usually found to be unreliable (except for the attributed opinion of it's authors).
I personally feel that the Telegraph is a appalling newspaper that publishes hateful content and is as reliable as bridge made of cheese, but my great distaste of its bias doesn't make it an unreliable source according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However a neo-nazi website writing about "the Jew" isn't reliable, as hate is something that blinds people to reason and facts. The line between someone's personal distaste of a source for it's bias, and that source's bias being so profound that it affects the source reliability can be a difficult thing to judge. The two examples I gave are easy, but as the difference gets smaller the judgement gets harder (that's why RFCs exist). I would suggest avoiding "hateful" and instead focus on bias (including a link to WP:RSBIAS won't hurt).
I'm unclear what you mean in point 5, it could use some clarifying. Publishing conspiracy theories generally does impact reliability, but I don't think that's what you mean (or at least I'm unsure what you mean).
It might be a good thing to add an exception about sources that explicitly support violence against named individuals, such sources would be covered (and excluded by) WP:BLP rather than WP:RS.
One final point about WP:Hate is disruptive, you have the point a bit backwards. Your essay says "holding such views is disruptive", but the point is the opposite. Holding such views isn't disruptive, editors can be racists, but they can't express racist views on Wikipedia, as that will cause disruption. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, as long as editors aren't disruptive they can hold whatever personal opinions they like (they just have to keep those opinions to themselves).
Good luck with your essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s incredibly helpful, thank you very much! I’ll make those changes as soon as I can! FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, desktop site, android, Chrome

Ok, so I'm guessing you use both mobile and desktop and see a performance issue on both. I don't know what "desktop site" is, but I'll hazard a guess on the following:

• Mobile, Android.
• Desktop, [operating system], Chrome

Now if we could just fill in desktop OS, and I'd suggest two bullets (and two signatures) instead of one. That would be peachy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I use Chrome on an android mobile phone to edit using the desktop site. The entry I added was correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. We can hope the guys at VPT know how to read that and interpret it. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they can, otherwise they could try reading Cullen328 essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. They've been using something similar for the last decade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could theoretically edit on a PC using the mobile site, if you were some sort of masochist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]