User talk:Operator873/Archive 2

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Give QD a chance

Usually put articles up for QD if they meet the requirements. RfD is meant for cases which obviously need discussion and/or if request for QD is refused. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: I was on the fence about that one. Yes, it was clearly complex and reproduced on enwiki. But I elected to send it to RfD instead of QD as I've received feedback about QD'ing some articles that could be "saved." I agree it probably should have been tagged for QD. My apologies. Operator873^talkconnect 18:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcoming IPs

Hi there! I saw that you gave User:98.191.176.121 a problem user welcome and I just thought I would mention that that is generally reserved for users (i.e. they have a username rather than being an ip). IPs are only welcomed if they have made some useful contributions, and then they are welcomed with a welcome-anon template. If an IP is vandalising (as in this case was occuring), then a standard warning should be used. Thanks so so much, Milo, Talk, Contribs 18:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@MiloDenn: Hey there! Thanks for the feedback. The reason I welcomed verses warned is mainly detailed in WP:BITE. IP addresses are people too. Since the editor in question initially made this edit, I allowed the possibility they may be new and not understand how to make constructive edits. You may also note in the revision history, my first revert stated plainly I was assuming good faith. The welcome message explains their edits were not constructive and encourages them to visit pages that might help them learn how to make constructive edits. I believe a less "bitey" response to a first edit, even from an IP editor, is much better than assuming bad faith. I do see what you are pointing out with the template being for users; however, in the absence of an IP specific template, I still believe this template is best for being welcoming... even to IPs. Operator873^talkconnect 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I can see where you are coming from (although I am fairly sureWP:Bite doesn't apply to users), although I still don't believe that that welcome really fitted what was going on, since it is meant for a user: perhaps a new template is what is needed. Anyway, sorry to bother you! Milo, Talk, Contribs 18:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@MiloDenn: No bother at all! I always welcome and value feedback from my fellow editors. I agree, a better template is needed. I will look into making one at some point in the next couple of weeks. Operator873^talkconnect 18:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be brilliant if you could! (I'm afraid I don't really have the technical know how to do so!) Thanks again, Milo, Talk, Contribs 18:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@MiloDenn: I've made this request for the Twinkle gods. I believe that may be the easiest solution, although the enwiki template will need to be simplified. Operator873^talkconnect 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's perfect: thanks! (And if you need any help simplifying the wording let me know) Milo, Talk, Contribs 09:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again but I saw you used the same template as before on User talk:49.244.64.200 and this time I really don't think you can AGF: it was clearly vandalism, so please try and use a warning (Level 1 warnings are very gentle and say Welcome to Wikipedia). Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@MiloDenn: You're absolutely right. That was a force of habit type thing. Thanks for pointing it out. Operator873^talkconnect 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for working on the deprecated image parameters and other maintenance stuff. I'm never sure how many of us do that kind of work, so I'm always glad to see someone working on it. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Happy to help! Maintenance categories with a lot of stuff in them slowly work my nerves... so I don't have much of a choice. Heh. Gotta get 'em done. I just wanted to get established here before I started doing major crazy stuff. I'm hoping to get all the major crap eliminated in the next few days. Operator873^talkconnect 01:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello user:Operator873, I wanted to ask something about IP addresses. I see a lot of them are used here mostly to vandalism pages and in most instances, they add unnecessary materials or literally create articles with no more than 10 words. I have had to put such on WP:QD. My question is, is it right to warn such users considering they are IP users and IP do change with time MyPeople76 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@MyPeople76: Hello and thanks for the question. Yes, there are several editors who contribute here, some not constructively, from IP addresses. This means they have elected not to create an account with Wikipedia. However, be they IP users or account holder, you must ALWAYS assume good faith because IP editors are people too.. When you have to take action on vandalism or request deletion of an article an IP address made, it is best practice to leave them a message explaining why the action is being taken. While I understand being easily dismayed by the actions of a few IPs, the vast majority of IP editors are constructive editors. The others, well... you'd be surprised how many IP addresses are the same person. There are a few editors here who track those IPs and know the vandals well.

In short, yes... always leave a message on talk pages explaining why you did what you did. That's being a good Wikipedian. Operator873^talkconnect 22:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd suggest you take a look at WP:TWINKLE which makes this process a bit easier. But keep in mind, even edits and messages you leave with this tool are still your responsibility. Operator873^talkconnect 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. I noticed some IP user on the new pages log just create pages with title names and make a few jokes (though others like the IP user who creates articles about towns in Alabama really does some good job). In such instances, I put the QD tag but often never left them a message. Will take the above into consideration. Best regards MyPeople76 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Issue with your deprecated parameter fixes

I'm seeing an issue with Olsztyn as a result of your change. It put the article into Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. You can see the issue if you edit the page then preview it without making any changes: it shows that it's not recognizing the "90px" string as anything valid where it's coded after the image_shield parameter. Please take a look. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6:: That seems to be a result of my forbidding AWB to edit anything beyond the parameters I set. I deleted the |##px]] and everything seems to work now. Thanks for the heads up. Operator873^talkconnect 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert my good faith edit?

On simple English,I edited the Brownian motion page however you left a discussion on my page saying you deleted it to prevent vandalism.How did I vandalise the page? I want an explanation (Ruskiguy2.0 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC))

@Ruskiguy2.0: I reverted your edit because you introduced complex English to the article. Simple Wikipedia is much different than English Wikipedia. We use a limited word list here and strive to keep articles as simple as possible. You can read more about it here. You're welcome to message me again if you have further questions. Operator873^talkconnect 23:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

you took my edits out on 13th Amendment. However, see wikipedia article, Penal labor in the United States.

Barton Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Campbell (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bruce Campbell: Hello. I'm sorry you disagree. For your reference, allow me to provide the text found in Section 1, 13th Amendment, US Constitution:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Please note the portion of the Amendment which I have placed in bold. You introduction to the article was deliberately introducing false information, or you failed to research your opinion properly before adding your thoughts as fact. Either way, a quick check of this page reveals original research is not admissible in this encyclopedia. Therefore, unless you have major independent sources which are secondary to the topic at hand and verifiable, your proposed changed will not be allowed. Thank you. Operator873^talkconnect 01:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, you may be interested to learn penal labor is paid and prisoners have the right to form unions. That makes it fairly difficult to suggest it is the same thing as indentured servitude or slavery. Operator873^talkconnect 02:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to navigate through this process. I don't know where the tilda symbol is on the keyboard to leave a signature as the guidelines recommend. Is a wikipedia article considered a credible source?, Penal labor in the United States. article You're making it an assumption that all slaves were unpaid or that its illegal to pay slaves

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Look at bolded exception. this means if the party shall have been duly convicted, then slavery is legal. see wikipedia article, Penal labor in the United States it specifically cites this exception.

It's quite difficult to find for some reason. here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

Also see As this is ostensibly a legal blog, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that it does not, in fact, violate the Thirteenth Amendment to require prisoners to work for free. And there is a lot more information concerning legal slavery for convicts in addition to exemption from minimum wage laws.

https://prisonlaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/prison-labor-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/

I wasn't "deliberately introducing false information" i was attempting to introduce correct information to an article that is in error. I will certainly admit that I didn't give the citation that would satisfy you .However the 13th Amendment specifically says that, "if the party shall have been duly convicted" then slavery "shall exist within the United States".

Barton CampbellBarton Campbell (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Barton Campbell: I agree. Prisoners are indeed paid a wage for their work, including commissary vouchers, etc. As I also said, they have been afforded the right to form unions as well. Clearly not a slave or indentured servant. For the record, using another Wikipedia article as a reference is not allowed as this is called primary sourcing. In other words, to maintain factual integrity, sources should come from something not related to the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia is related to Wikipedia. So we can't use articles here on Wikipedia as references. Secondly, blogs are not allowed to be used as references as that are not subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking. With a quick Google search, I'm sure I could find you a blog proclaiming any host of ridiculous proclamations including the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and saved someone's life.

I strongly and sincerely urge you to continue editing anywhere and everywhere you see fit here on Wikipedia. However, please be aware, the responsibility to prove the reliability, integrity, and ability to verify the claims made in your edits wholly and solely falls to you. If you fail to do so, your edits can and will be reverted, altered, or openly challenged. Operator873^talkconnect 07:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

1-"Prisoners are indeed paid a wage for their work, including commissary vouchers, etc."

Not in all cases at all. Receiving a wage is not the definition of not being a slave. This is an assumption on your part. Indeed, there are numerous cases of slaves who saved their money and purchased their own freedom before the Civil war. However, prisoners are not protected by minimum wage laws due to their legal status as slaves.

2- "As I also said, they have been afforded the right to form unions as well."

This is not true, Prisoners do not have a blanket right to form unions and can only do so if a warden allows it. This is not a right.

3-"Clearly not a slave or indentured servant."

Well the supreme court disagrees with you.

4- Also prisoners are denied the right in most but not all states to vote. This is also due to their status as slaves. (error: due to the14th Amendment)

5-"For the record, using another Wikipedia article as a reference is not allowed as this is called primary sourcing. In other words, to maintain factual integrity, sources should come from something not related to the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia is related to Wikipedia. So we can't use articles here on Wikipedia as references. Secondly, blogs are not allowed to be used as references."

Thank you. for your helpful guidance. However, the Penal Labor article is filled with citations that are ostensibly good And I will find the supreme court rulings and re-amend the article with the proper citations.

However, the words of the 13th Amendment itself make clear within itself that people convicted in court are slaves. the Nazis said a lie repeated enough times comes to be regarded as true by the people. We've been told so many times that the 13 amendment abolished slavery. We read the words and can't even see what it actually says anymore. Hidden in plain sight as the saying goes. However, the Supreme court reaffirmed that prisoners were indeed slaves. And I'll find the exact ruling and use it as a citation.

Barton Campbell (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck on your quest. You may provide whatever evidence you find and the article's talk page. You're welcome to return to my talk page should you have questions about how to edit or where to find appropriate guidelines... However, this conversation should be continued on the article's talk page and not mine. Thanks. Operator873^talkconnect 08:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerning your userpage.

Good Morning. This is a very difficult message for me to write as I don't wish to seem rude. I clicked onto a link recently and it took me to your userpage. Unfortunately, the colour scheme you used gave me a feeling of disorientation. Shortly after flicking away from the page, I suffered a seizure.

I suffer from focal Epilepsy, which affects the temporal lobe and means that certain images or colours which clash, weird wallpaper, repeating patterns and so on, transfix me and cause minor or major seizures.

I know we don't do disclaimers here, so I'd like to politely ask if you'd consider redesigning or simply changing the colour scheme to the page?

I am sorry if this appears mean or rude, feel free to ignore it if you wish to :) I can always avoid your userpage just by clicking a little more accurately!

Best, DaneGeld (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: I'm horrified to hear my work caused such a reaction. Your message has left me in a precarious position. While I do not want to seem insensitive and callous, I invested a lot of time, energy, and creative work on my userpage and don't particularly wish to change it. That being said, I ask for your assistance in determining what might correct this issue. Is it the dark background contrasted with the bright colors? If the solution is palatable to me, I'd implement it, with your assistance. Otherwise, I'm not sure what steps could be taken. If you're planning on being online for a while, I'd like to work with you and see what solution we can arrive at that is satisfactory for both of us. Operator873^talkconnect 23:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Operator873: - It is most likely to be the use of red & green against a dark background. I have experienced a similar effect when having visited the optometrist, during a test which featured black circles on a red & green background. The effect is similar to watching a red/green 3D movie with your glasses the wrong way round... As I said, if you don't wish to change the page, given the work you've put into it, don't. I can avoid the page if I'm careful :) Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: Let me think on this a bit and see what I can come up with. Operator873^talkconnect 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
@DaneGeld: I've reworked the colors for the userpage. I hesitate to say "go look" because I'm afraid it may cause other negative reactions should it not be good enough. Operator873^talkconnect 01:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help me out. The new colour scheme is fine. The changes you have made (notably putting the red & green onto a light background) seems to have done the job. I am sorry I had to ask you to make adjustments to help me, but I am grateful for the effort you put into this. Thank you :) DaneGeld (talk)

Warning about direct copying from other Wikipedias

I saw this warning that you issued. First, I don't think that a final warning was called for yet. There had been only one earlier warning (one that I left) in spite of there being many qd notices on the page. (QD notices are not warnings.) Besides that, I'm not sure that directly copying articles is considered vandalism. I think it's more an indication that the user doesn't understand what this wiki is about. This may be a case where we need more custom-written warning messages, since there aren't canned graduated ones for this issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please justify your claim of vandalism.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made under a new section. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On what grounds do you justify my edit of Jayda Frannsen is vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.128 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)}

@213.205.241.128: This one. Note a major, independent source that is verifiable and is subject to editorial oversight is required before adding controversial information regarding a living person. Operator873^talkconnect 00:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@213.205.241.128: Additionally, it has come to my attention you are currently blocked on the English Wikipedia. I'm inclined to warn you that any further disruption here on Simple English Wikipedia may result in you being blocked from editing without further warning under the WP:ONESTRIKE policy. I will be adding this information to your talk page as well. Operator873^talkconnect 00:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd like to point out that not everything that doesn't conform to policy is necessarily vandalism, even if it needs to be removed. Speaking as an admin, I don't see that the change is question was disruptive. I would not block this user for it, although I would tell them that the statement should be sourced. Please remember WP:AGF. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Auntof6. My change to the article was not biased. Nor did I break any of the rules. I was trying to lesson the bias of the article, as I said in the description note to the edit. I was adding a source but someone reverted the edit before I could do so.213.205.241.128 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add the source. Vermont (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but if I add it to the article he, and/or someone else will just delete it and block me.213.205.241.128 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add it. No one will revert it. Or, you can link it here and I can check if it is reliable. Vermont (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is one of many it's:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/30/britain-first-anti-islam-far-right-muslims In this article he quotes a survey saying that only 28% disagree with a key Britain First's view on Islam.213.205.241.128 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Your original addition, which was "Surveys show that many of Jayda Fransen's view are mainstream in Britain.", is inaccurate and not supported by that source. The source says that some of Britain First's anti-muslim views are common, but that is not enough to warrant saying that many of the deputy leader's views are common, as it is very vague. Remember that Wikipedia is synthesis of the sources, and not original research or opinions. If you wish to use the article from The Guardian and it's information, I recommend adding it in an unbiased way on Britain First rather than on Jayda Fransen's page. Vermont (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The surveys quoted in the Guardian article give about 30%, 43% and 72% support in the UK for B.F. and Fransens' views. So I think the article is fine to add as balance to the claim that her views have mainstream support rather than describing her views as far-right. Plus all surveys for years give 70%+ against mass-immigration and about 60% or more that mass-immigration has been harmful. But there's no way this will be allowed on the Wikipedia.213.205.241.128 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your help.213.205.241.128 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: To clarify, you're saying an IP address that is currently blocked on English Wikipedia for the same type of behavior which is now editing on Simple English Wikipedia and making the same type of edits whilst claiming to be "correcting bias" (which is the same behavior on enwiki) shouldn't be regarded as vandalism? Fascinating. I will defer to your guidance, however much I disagree with it, and allow you to handle the edits as you see fit. 213.205.241.128, I leave your edits to the sole responsibility of Auntof6. Do as you wish. Operator873^talkconnect 01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the Islam page.

Your removal of all the information about the massacre of the staff of Charlie Hebdo is vandalism. Your false statement in the editing note is also against the Wikipedia rules.213.205.241.129 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved comment to appropriate section from same editor. Operator873^talkconnect 22:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding discussion closed templates since the above message is from an editor, whom is now globally locked due to vandalism and disruptive editing, and I doubt there will be further inputs on this thread. Operator873^talkconnect 22:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved for record. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made under a new section. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sdfghjkl

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.83.114 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Manzikert

Hi there. I just wanted to point out errors like this one. The caption needs to be separated or else the image breaks. Do you preview the page afterwards on AWB? Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove ian watkins page

Tell me how it`s wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.6.38 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It was an attack page, and against BLP policy. Vermont (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pluto is a planet again

NASA Says its a planet IAU101 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)