User talk:Beetstra: Difference between revisions

Skip to bottom

just wanna say hello

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here and please don't forget to sign your post You may want to have a look at the subjects in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject. The question you may have may already have been answered there Dirk Beetstra

Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #222

I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

Responding I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link: If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information'). Add an appropriate linkfarm (you can consider to remove other links covered there). Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects. Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this) If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof. Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot. Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive Talk started 20/3/2006 1 - 7/9/2006 2 - 29/11/2006 3 - 05/02/2007 4 - 05/03/2007 5 - 15/03/2007 6 - 29/07/2007 7 - 06/11/2007 8 - 31/03/2008 9 - 22/09/2008 10 - 03/02/2009 11 - 17/05/2009 12 - 13/11/2009 13 - 27/5/2010 14 - 13/12/2010 15 - 5/7/2011 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - current 23 - 24 - 25 -

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Raised the issue of the spamblack list at RSN

For obvious reasons. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I did not want to cross-post it, but there are some obvious places where there may be interest. Thanks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

YGM

Received and replied. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Articles for deletion/Zabbix

Hello and thank you for your effort! As you might be surprised to hear is that I don't plan to criticize you here but want to ask you about your motivation instead. As you can see on my edits and profile page you can consider me an expert on this field while being neutral. I see that you get a lot of opposition for requesting the RfD. And I understand that ruffled some feathers coming from different directions. The motivation of my questions is that I'm new to wikipedia and try to understand how things are happening around here. I would like to ask you:

1. How did you find that topic? Was it in some queue? Is it of personal interest?
2. Since you triggered the RfD it is clear that you want the article in it's current state removed. Do you consider Wikipedia a better place without it?
3. What do you think about an immediate (better) rebuild of an article about Zabbix after it's deletion given people are willing to do it? Or do you think a cooldown phase makes more sense?
4. You said by yourself that you put quite some effort already into this article (wading through the edit history). Do you consider the effort you put in worth it for the possible result? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Thank you for your remark. I'll answer your questions in order:

1. I follow quite some pages which have in the past had problems with spam. That sometimes leads you to other pages. In this case I encountered Zabbix, which read as just a promotional piece after which I looked further.
2. No and yes. The article may be suitable for inclusion if there are suitable references, but the current promotional text has to be removed. I do think that the state the article was in to be rather unsalvegable.
3. A total overhaul may be possible, but seen the history I think that a clean start is a better option. You see the defense that is coming up, and the nature of the edits since my AfD (I haven't evaluated yours, so exclude those) just made it worse.
4. Lets put it this way: I do recognize that sometimes you have to just throw stuff away and start over. Repairing your car over and over to keep it on the road may be fun, but at some point it is better to just scrap it and buy a new(er) one. For Zabbix I have considered to revert it to the first revision and let it re-evolve from there as well, but did not expect that would get anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and detailed reply. I have read it right after you wrote this but I wanted to take the time now to thank you for the processing of this article because it's a good piece to learn from it. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

7 days

You are supposed to know about "This category may be deleted if it has remained empty for at least seven days". -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: thanks for the heads up .. so much for 'speedy' deletion then. I have undeleted the cat. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Today I made some very semi-bold edits in that area. I/we have to be careful for opposition or alternative flow ideas. DePiep (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: how do we know that it is empty for 7 days though? Maybe one ugly wikignome silently adds articles at midnight and removes them at 3am … o_O … Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ouch! Lucky, I am not an admin so I don't have to think about that :-) Could be July before it's done ... (If you're serious re my 'opposition' note: I meant to say that my edits & moves & approaches might be considered incorrect &tc, so my plan might have to be partly reversed or something. I took care to keep that option open). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: I saw it as an attempt to centralize the work. I think that there should be a move to a wider discussion then, what does the community think about datapages in the first place. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A Misunderstanding here? My concern was/is: if someone else objected to my new setup (of 28 Feb: my concluding obdervations, the move into a new subpage, the follow up ie reopening talks possible, ...), that setup could have to be changed. Because I can only propose a route, not enforce. Part of this, namely the option to oppose/contest/revert my proposal-as-edited, should be left open. Nicely, {{db-c1}} includes this delay time (delay hard-to-reverse edits such as deletion). Of course, the 7-day rule also helps against late popping-up category members, good too. So I relied on that, and was surprised by the early deletion. Also: the wait is good practice anyway, no harm done. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

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

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

It turns out that requests are archived, regardless of whether they are responded to or not. My last request got archived that way without getting responded to. If you or the other whitelist admins got time, please review my latest request which is different from my previous one before it gets archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Yes, I know, I'm sorry. It sometimes looks like I am the only one who is active there, and I am currently rather busy and do not have time to fully investigate all the additions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Whitelist

filmcompanion(dot)in/reviews/bollywood-review/the-kashmir-files-movie-review-a-defensive-and-dishonest-dive-into-the-past/ - Need to use in an article on the relevant film. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)