Vsmith

Hi, I haven't visited the Newcastle page in a bit and noticed you had removed an old newspaper I had included as sort of color and to show the referenced "scampering" that was indicated in the article. I was kind of puzzled why you took it out and I would like to add it back, but wanted to get your take on this before I changed anything. I think it provides a neat bit of historical context to go to the tornado section, especially considering how odd the quote sounds to modern ears. Anyhow.... looking forward to hearing from you on this. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go for it (as long as it is a "reliable source", that was a while back and it isn't on my watchlist ... Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your restoration of the articles Gourd Creek and Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) and made them redirects again. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) was clear, it was determined that these subjects did not merit separate articles. I am shocked that you, as an administrator, would flippantly disregard that consensus and act unilaterally to revert that decision. ✗plicit 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah "flippantly disregard" - ain't that cute? And "shocked" ! I simply created articles about two valid streams based on their existence and the evidence on relevant topographic maps. I'm shocked that a group of wikipedians would take it upon themselves to destroy and delete valid articles about existing streams. Those deletionists routinely work to destroy Wikipedia as a comprehensive encyclopedia. As a editor and admin I take Wikipedia seriously and have worked for nearly 20 years to improve and expand this project - I assure you there be no "flippant disregard" here. So take your phoney "shock" and shove it. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haydite, Missouri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haydite, Missouri 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 until the discussion has finished.

MB 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would you care to explain why you reverted my edits on Paracel Islands with no reasoning? –Aidan721 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a bunch of underlined spaces ... couldn't see a need for that. Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's the proper formatting for infobox parameters per WP:INFOBOXNAME. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Vsmith for your edit to Zebulon, North Carolina, correcting the GNIS citation links with better code! It wasn't a large edit or anything, but the town means a lot to me and I love to see any edits benefitting the article, as it doesn't get many. I really appreciate you spending you time to fix this. Thanks again! 😁 --Johnson524 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vsmith

Thank you for creating Wakefieldite-(Ce).

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Any chance of an image.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't have an image - and don't think I have a specimen of wakefiedlite (either Ce or La) in my collection. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vsmith

Thank you for creating Wakefieldite-(La).

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, would this not be better in a table in the Wakefieldite article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good afternoon,

I am wondering why the additions to the etymology of the word Ardeal has been deleted, together with reference? The source, and a few other etymologists, support the theory of this word deriving from a Proto-Indo-European etymon, yet, on the main page only the variant from Hungarian language is recognised.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Kind regards, Adrian Aristeus01 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems that your wording was a bit confusing and your referencing was quite simply a mess. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I'll try to do better. Thanks! Aristeus01 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vsmith 👋 Stateless Nations Article become a controversial page as people of certain ideology, regardless of the neutrality of Wikipedia, have added and removed many names from the list of this page without providing any reliable source, to avoid this, I request you to lock this page. Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

No thanks. And if I were to do so, I would undo your recent addition first. We don't do this sort of thing. Sorry 'bout that - Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why did you deleted all the sources from the Amhara page that the user yonasJH deleted. Why? I don’t understand? 2A00:A040:194:C4AF:709D:E8CF:7C32:6DF6 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know I reverted edits by someone evading their block, as is standard practice. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear Vsmith, I made an edit regarding Ango's publication detailing the first wave theory of light and I attempted to provide the reference, which I suspect was clumsy in execution. Regardless I think it was a relevant and factual edit that was also fascinating and I am wondering why it was deleted? Yours sincerely, Jonathan - fellow geologist/geophysicist Jcdownes (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but what was the specific article you are referring to? Vsmith (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Christiaan Huygens. "With regard to the wave theory, both Huygens and another author, Pierre Ango (1640-1694), a professor of mathematics at Rouen, had studied the experiments of Jesuit Ignace-Gaston Pardies, described in a manuscript which was never published. These experiments seem to have suggested to Ango and Huygens their wave and light theory. Ango published in 1682 a work which was actually the first hypothesis that stated the wave nature of light, and Huygens had a copy of this treatise in his library [https://bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/37-foucault-analysis.pdf>" Jcdownes (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems when I try to go to that website I get a warning about it being unsafe ... so decided not. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The author of the book which I referenced provides his own sub-references:

4. L’Optique, by P. Pierre Ango, Paris, Michallet, 1682 (on line in Google Books).

5. Catalog of the Huygens sale, Moetjens, La Hague, 1695, page 13.

Should I use those instead?

Regards,

Jonathan Jcdownes (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Best to cite the source you used. At least that is what I would do. Vsmith (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

you reverted my tagging of this sentence as "incomprehensible". Do you not agree that so many of its constituent terms and phrases make so little sense taken out of the context of the referenced research paper that the whole thing ends up conveying essentially zero worthwhile information to a typical reader? Maybe I just didn't pick quite the right tag? To be clear, the sentences immediately before and after are just fine; this one sorely sticks out.

Cheers,

- 2A02:560:582D:CE00:75A0:2629:82EB:98FE (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is a direct quote of a "scholarly" source. And, yes it is rather poorly written as is all to common as such ... Vsmith (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Except it's not formatted as a quote, and searching for it in the pdf comes up blank. More like someone skimmed some of the jargon and stuck it together with garbled grammar. Either way, as it is, it adds no value whatsoever to the article. A quick look at the paper itself makes me think that its prose is fine, and that it's indeed potentially relevant to this article. Maybe get rid of the silly sentence altogether and stick the source someplace else?

- 2A02:560:582D:CE00:75A0:2629:82EB:98FE (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you lastly removed thousands of written sources from the Wikipedia page of the Amhara people because you claimed it was “poorly written” which make no sense. it wasn’t poorly written and now the page is closed. 213.137.70.40 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"removed thousands of written sources" I think not eh? Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You removed many sources from the page of the Amhara people because you claimed it was “poorly written” Tamart0290 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

And who are you? Seems this claim is your only post. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

in August 31 (which is 15 days ago) you removed many sources from the page of the Amhara people. And you wrote that the reason that you remove it was because it was “poorly written” Tamart0290 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

So? and again who are you - just go edit something and quit this harassment. Sorry 'bout that ... --Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you, but I want to edit all the stuff that you removed from the page of the Amhara people on the 30 of August. I did edit request multiple times but no one took a look at this or even bother to. Can you please open the page of the Amhara people so I can edit they stuff that were removed? Tamart0290 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no - the page was protected by another admin - based on disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

the* Tamart0290 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok. So can’t you edit back all the sources/informations that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because that page got closed right after your removed all the sources. Tamart0290 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

you* Tamart0290 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand. ok. The page is closed and you can do about it. But why can’t you put back all the sources that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand. ok. The page is closed and there is nothing you can do about it. But why can’t you put back all the sources that you removed on August 30? Tamart0290 (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the user yonas J deleted all the sources that i edited on the page of the Amhara people. Why is that happening? those are well established sources. it is not the first time that He is doing that. Tamart0290 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are aware that user is going around willy-nilly creating wikilinks, I've left warnings for WP:OVERLINKING on their talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great, an Admin who doesn't reply. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi ... replied, roll on down the line. Cheers back atcha. Sorry 'bout that - was busy elsewhere ... --Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.

Could you please explain your reasons for this revert? If i understand correctly, single crystal (no hyphen) is the noun form, single-crystal (with hyphen) is the adjective form, and the subject of the article is the thing (noun), not the adjective. While the grammar as you restored it is correct, i find it confusing; the comma after the hyphenated single-crystal makes that read like a noun form, which makes the appositive phrase or monocrystalline read like monocrystalline is a noun (like tourmaline or gasoline), and then the next word is a noun (which can also be an adjective), which is just jarring.

Also, i have observed that Wikipedia tends to start each article with a sentence that includes the name or names of the article's subject in bold, which would generally be the noun, not the adjective. The way you restored the bold text reinforces my incorrect impression of the bolded terms being nouns instead of adjectives.

i hope this makes sense and you can explain to me how my edit was inappropriate, if it was inappropriate. Cheers! --173.67.42.107 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to restore your edit as I wasn't aware of the reasoning ... cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nice back yard! 86.140.233.62 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I see you reverted an edit done by user 180.71.27.249 on the Moldova page. The first passage of the article now reads: "The unrecognised Russian puppet state of Transnistria lies across the Dniester on..."

Shouldn't it be just "unrecognised Russian state", or another lesser charged wording, to keep the tone politically neutral?

Cheers! Dhyana b (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hudson Bay Lowlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The correct Mount Risou is in France (the coordinates are OK) but the link point toward a mountain called Mont Risoux in Switzerland witch is not the good one ! (I'm also retreated science teacher at secondary school !). I did not find any good link to the correct Mount Risou, so I prefered no link at all and the correct writing of Mont Risou, Hautes-Alpes, France. Best regards and thanks Philippe Lospinguinos (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Normchou. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eco-terrorism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi, I restored the version before your last revert. Please refer to the source if you still have any doubts. Normchou ^💬 16:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Vsmith,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Remove this man on caliphate list he is not a muslim and don't play with muslim hearts please 37.159.107.6 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue who "this man" is or what edit you are referring to ... Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

One of your edits were copied and pasted with too much info!!! Jpoe9900 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eh ... which one? Vsmith (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey I saw this edit and checked the change, and the GNIS doesn't appear to list those coordinates, which are quite far from the city, just over 70 miles to the east of the city. Was this a typo in the edit, or am I looking at something on here wrong? I didn't want to mess with the changes without asking first. Thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The coords were from the GNIS page - I picked the average (sorta) from the four given. They are all within a two minute range. Could be the gnis has an error - will check with a topo map. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just checked the topo and Buford is at the intersection of four quadrangles at 34 07 30 N and 84 0 0 W. So I'll keep my edit. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well ... I see I had longitude at 83 instead of 84, so fixed it now ... sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

All good, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

i am extremely sorry for my poor writing so i apologies for it but the reference has a very good evidence about the atomic view by Chinese philosophy.You can help expanding the article by using this link https://www.jstor.org/stable/6621 Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mud Center, Indiana. Not welcome at da SD (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

That be a rather odd comment. Please explain the problem at Mud Center is your view. Thanks in advance. :) Vsmith (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Vsmith: Disregard the warning. It was made by a vandalism only account that spammed similar warnings across a number of user's pages. I'm going through reverting their edits now, which is how I found this conversation. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, noticed your interest in Enid and in teaching. I’ve been trying to get a separate page for the Autry Technology Center in Enid, but have run up against a reviewer who thinks it isn’t “notable” enough. You might want to check out the Autry page, then click on the deletion discussion page link, second line from the top and—if you agree the page should stay—leave a comment recommending that it not be deleted. Thanks. TulGuy (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently on Jan. 8, 2023, you deleted 4 entries I had previously made to Deer Lodge's Notable People. You also made it impossible for me to simply undo what you did. May I ask why? Please advise! In lieu of a satisfactory reply I will add them again, and lodge a complaint. Thank you. (By the way, if it was you who linked James H. Mills to James Henry Mills, please note that the former was long dead when the latter was born.) Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that Mills error - so it goes. Vsmith (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

And your reason for deleting the other 4? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Took a look and cut some excess as details are to be found in linked articles. Keep the list entries brief. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Words fail me. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please forgive my perhaps non-neutral replies. Although I've had a Wikipedia ID for some time, I rarely contribute, and I do appreciate the hard work that dedicated admins like yourself perform. I did ask for a third party opinion and was properly rebuffed. I really just want to understand how to deal with the notable people in the Deer Lodge article. Again I apologize. Thank you. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem. To "deal with the notable people" is quite simple (maybe); just find a valid reference or two which support their notability and write the article. Local or regional news articles would be most likely - unless the are widely known (or notorious). Vsmith (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Appreciate your attention to this matter. Does your rewrite refer only to the Deer Lodge, Montana article or to separate articles for each person which would then be referenced by the main article? Articles supporting notability can, as I recall, be dicey. Most of what I've been able to find on one of them consists of newspaper articles in the New Northwest newspaper, which was Deer Lodge's only newspaper at that (1870's, 1880's) time. (Note that this is NOT The New Northwest article in Wikipedia.) As I recall, Wikipedia frowns on newspaper articles, preferring secondary sources. I wouldn't want to waste our time if newspaper articles are excluded. Your take? Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Bad me. I see your reference to local or regional news articles. Can I take that as an endorsement of the sort of newspaper articles which I described above? One qualifying factor might be that all issues of the New Northwest are available for searching on Newspapers.com. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the bye, James H. Mills was the long time owner/editor of the New Northwest, among a number of other things. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you have a grasp on what is needed - charge on and have fun along the way --Vsmith (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) And separate articles would be the best if supporting refs are available. Individuals can be mentioned within the article (without having their own article) assuming the added content can be referenced. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much. Keep you posted. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've gotten the impression that you're familiar with the geography of the Douglas/Ozark county areas. I've been working on Battle of Clark's Mill, and want to make sure that the geography I've pieced together from the sources is correct. The article before I added sources made reference to the Bertha area, but the sources I consulted all refer to the Bertha area as just the location's relative position to Rockbridge, so I guess Bertha didn't exist until after 1862 maybe? One of the sources (Nichols), claimed the blockhouse at Clark's Mill was on "Big Beaver Creek", but maps I looked at show that Creek being out by Arno and not near Vera Cruz as well. So that claim is not in the article. Not even Elmo Ingenthron's old Borderland Rebellion book that focuses on the Springfield-to-Arkansas area has much to say on this one, largely just quoting the Federal commander's report.

I spent a couple days over in Ava for work in 2021, but otherwise don't have any first hand experience with the area. Hog Farm _Talk 05:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bertha is about 8 miles southeast of Vera Cruz on Fox Creek just north of Bryant Creek and three miles northeast of Rockbridge. The Rome area is on Beaver Creek southwest of Ava (~9 miles) and ~15 miles WSW of Vera Cruz. There was Civil War action in the Rome area altho I'm not familiar with the details. One of the buildings from the Rome area was moved and is now located along Hwy 14 near the east city limits of Ava. The museum in Ava has considerable material about the Civil War era in Douglas County (only open on Saturdays last I knew). The museum publishes a journal (1 or 2 issues per year) and some of those have articles about the locations of interest - I have a few of them somewhere ... :) If my memory kicks in with more info ... or whatever I'll pass it along. Will celebrate my 80th birthday in a week - so I might forget :) Cheers! Vsmith (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Iron(II) oxide, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for blocking the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.59.36.170 . the user is still editing under his IPv6 range though, could you block that too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:7080:5000:1F:711B:E366:9051:EF0D/64 thanks! --FMSky (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your recent reversion of my contribution included the comment: “Sorry, but the paragraph was not sourced, if it can be sourced ... then provide a reference.” This is the sort of thing that puts people off contributing to Wikipedia. Reading through the current article, probably 99% of the content likewise have no references. These have all been contributed over the years as the page was slowly developed by well-meaning contributors, and accepted by general consensus over the years by numerous editors making judgment calls, either because the topic was within their area of expertise or because it simply interested them. On what basis have you decided to delete my contribution, but not deleted the remaining 99% of unsourced entries? Is it simply because mine is something new? Something that you've never thought of and thus obviously can't be true? I can easily search through the Internet to find you some relevant sources. But you know what? It's not worth it to me. I just thought it was worthwhile information. Your mindless deletion, undoubtedly justified by some Wikipedia rule, doesn't affect me. Instead, it affects the spread of useful knowledge. What a waste. 115.64.108.207 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, you changed a name from "Susan Arntz" to "Susan Rants" while updating gnis info. I'm guessing it was some kind of autocorrect error? If so, you may want to disable it while doing other updates. For a split second I thought it was some kind of sneaky vandalism, haha. Woodroar (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that ... I have no clue what caused that glitch. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You made an insightful contribution to the Hindu Kush article, however the page has been a victim of abuse by anon and biased users, trying to alter meanings and context. I had made a contribution as an improvement but it was reverted by an annoying wiki user and I haven’t yet figured out all the tools.

Would you be able to check your contribution and see if can still be added on?

Thank you. IsTruthSweet (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I see no evidence of "abuse by anon and biased users". I took a look at your edit to the page ... and quite simply I would have reverted it. I would suggest that you start by making smaller edits rather than large changes. Observe other user's edits and proceed slowly ... learn by doing. Vsmith (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, came across this user MrHerii (talk · contribs) and not sure what to do about their behaviour. Seems like they have a real focus on Elon Musk, which fine, but they seem to have almost lost grip on reality in some way. They're mostly responsible for this page and its infobox which almost reads like fanfiction that I'm surprised hasn't been deleted yet (Musk family), their user page has had similar fanfic leanings about a Musk Martian Colony [1], and their sandbox looks to be the same and recently they added obviously Nazi inspired iconography to it [2].

Usually if it was blatant vandalism or disruption I'd know where to report it but this is just so... odd that I want a second opinion on it.

Thanks Apache287 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Would you please refrain from editing against the consensus at the Palmer Report? When users revert your edits, it is best to go to the talk page and attempt to gain consensus rather than engaging in a slow-motion edit war. If you fail to gain consensus, it is against policy to try to war-in your preferred edits into the article. You have attempted to include your preferred version for the article at least six times ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), and each time you have been reverted . Please ping me if you have any questions :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the "warning" Dr. Swag Lord - would you mind explaining how my recent edit in which I simply separated the "what it is" from the "what it's been called" is somehow against consensus. Is it not an "American liberal website"? I simply stated what it is separate from the "fake news" accusations. Vsmith (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I can help explain it to you! Firstly, your edits are against consensus, because, to put it simply, the consensus disagrees with your edits. Back in October, at least three different admins informed you that your edits violated consensus and/or consisted of original research:

• GorillaWarfare: "Am I having deja vu? No consensus has been reached to make this change in your section above (#What it is ...) so I was surprised to see you went ahead with the change anyway, after multiple reverts and after being informed of WP:BRD. I am also extremely surprised to see such an experienced user arguing for a change based on their impressions after checking the site recently, as opposed to basing this off of what reliable sources say."
• ScottishFinnishRadish: "That would be WP:OR. There is consensus to call it a fake news site in wikivoice sure to the weight of sources identifying it as such."
• Chetsford: "Hopefully no one is making edits based on their WP:OR. The entire article is more-or-less a recitation of various RS saying TPR is a fake news website in different and creative ways. WP:LEAD requires we summarize the content of the article and WP:NPOV binds us to avoid "stating facts as opinions" (e.g. "It has been called a fake news website" [1] instead of the policy-compliant "it is fake news website").

Essentially, as explained by multiple other editors, your edit violates 1) our original research policy, since you are going to the Palmer Report site directly and making your independent analysis of the site, instead of relying on reliable sources. And 2) your edits violate our neutrality policy, because you are attempting to state uncontested facts as an opinion--"It has been called a fake news website"--whereas reliable sources are in agreement that the Palmer Report is a fake news site just like reliable sources are in agreement that the Palmer Report is a liberal site or an American site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, it seems that simply stating what it is - rather than what it has been called by some folks that seem to disagree with Mr. Palmer and prefer to call it a "fake news website" is some how a problem. I'm sorry, but I cannot see a problem with my simple statement - which is factually true - rather than calling it "fake news" or some such. I haven't removed the "fake news" accusations. Rather I simply stat upfront what it is. How is that a problem? It is "The Palmer Report" - not "The Fake News Controversy". Yes, Mr Palmer has been quite strongly opposed to Trump and trumpism and I would expect that Trump supporters might be upset. Time to move on methinks. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure what "Trump and trumpism" has to do with your specific edits and I hope you're not subtly accusing me, or any other user on Wikipedia, of being a "Trump supporter". I'm sorry, but I cannot see a problem with my simple statement --I'm sorry but I tried to explain what's wrong with your edit the best I could. I highly suggest you visit the tea house or help desk for additional information on WP core policies! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

hmm... So WP:Core policy would support the first line of an article being essentially a ""fake news website" attack, that would seem rather odd. Is that what you meant? And that an editor since 2004 and admin since 2005 needs to "visit the help desk" ... maybe stuff has changed ... eh? My apologies for that "trumpism" bit - that was a bit off. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Core policy would support that. Just like core policy would support calling The Gateway Pundit or Peace Data a fake news website. Yes, "fake news" might sound a bit harsh or negative but that's not the intention. We're simply stating what kind of site the Palmer Report is--just like with Gateway Pundit or with Peace Data. Apology accepted for the trumpism comment. And I knew you were an admin but I didn't realize you have been editing since '04. But policies and guidelines have definitely changed in the last 15 years so it's always a good idea to keep yourself updated and it never hurts to ask other editors for help/advice! :-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The fake bit is still in the lead - just shifted down to the second paragraph -as that seemed appropriate to me - could be moved up to first paragraph - just not the first sentence. And I see that I had removed that bit last fall, had forgotten as at that time I was on chemotherapy (successful) and there be a lot of blanks in my memory during that period. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, if you're comfortable putting it in the lead, what's your exact justification for not putting it in the first sentence? According to MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is.... If the subject is a fake news site, then that should be clear in the first sentence. This is no different than saying Reuters is a news agency or Metapedia is a fascist website. To be honest, I think saying the year the site was founded--2016--is not nearly as important for the lead as the fake news bit. And I am happy to hear your chemo went well. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see that Gråbergs Gråa Sång has restored your preferred version - can't say I'm surprised. Could you please provide an example or two of what you would consider "fake news" from recent (last 30 days or so) Palmer Reports posts. That would help me understand why it's so important to you-all to have it in the first line. Vsmith (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

What PR says or what Dr. Swag Lord thinks about it doesn't matter in WP-land (by which I mean Palmer Report). What independent WP:RS says about it does.

Is stuff like "Many of you are aware that a rogue anonymous Wikipedia editor added the words “liberal fake news website” to the very first sentence of Palmer Report’s Wikipedia page several years ago, and since been blocking all other Wikipedia editors from removing this absurd and libelous claim." best described as "truth", "opinion", or something else? People can differ all they like, it's what people do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

A couple of comment-section people on that article have concluded that Palmer's "rogue Wikipedia editor" is me, btw. I don't think that's what he meant, but perhaps I should commemorate it in a userbox or something, it's a bit of a distinction. Also, I wasn't gloating, I was sighing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, sure. Take this article, written the same day as the "Newsweek apology" article. In this article, Palmer talks about how in the recent 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case (concerning if a web designer could deny services for a same-sex couple), a false document was used. The false document was an inquiry from a gay man--but in reality, the man is straight and never requested services from the web designer. Palmer is completely right in this aspect. But what Palmer states next is completely untrue:
• According to established precedent, this should invalidate the entire case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling should be nullified. Of course this rogue Supreme Court does just whatever it wants and routinely violates the law.... 1) The Supreme Court does not "routinely violate the law" and 2) there is no "established precedent" that the case will be invalidated because justices had already accepted a set of facts that were made in the lower courts and both parties hadn't disputed the lower court findings that Smith faced a "credible threat" by Colorado state law. Even if the document was falsified, it will be too late to re-litigate whether or not Smith had standing to sue Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act in the first place. "The Supreme Court took the case independent of an actual request being made to create a ripe controversy to adjudicate," former federal prosecutor and elected state attorney Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek. "The holding and opinion, now issued, won't be impacted by the new information." [9].

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

hmm ... OK - perhaps I'll just ignore it all and move on ... or not ... By the way what field is your doctorate in ... I'm just curious. I was working toward a doctorate in geology way back when (1970s) - was close, but family came first and I moved on. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I would tell you, but for WP:PRIVACY/WP:OUTED reasons, I would prefer to keep that private. But it's certinaly not a STEM doctorate ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Amanda, and i recently made an edit to a wikipedia page as a new contributor. Firstly , I want to express my appreciation for the work you are doing to maintain the integrity and accuracy of wikipedia artcles. I noticed that you reverted my recent edit, and I wanted to reach out to seek some clarification. As a new writer, I must admit that i may not fully familiar with all the guidelines and rules surrounding wikipedia editing. I sincerely apologize that unknowingly my edit violated the policy, as you wrote can not cite wikipedia articles ,

My intention behind the edit was purely to improve the article's content and provide additional valuable information of the discovery that I still believe is missing . I did not intend to promote anything or engage in any form of bias. As a newcomer, I am eager to learn from experienced editors like yourself, and I would be grateful if you could kindly point out where I went wrong.

If there are specific guidelines or best practices that I should be aware of to avoid similar mistakes in the future, please do share them with me. Your guidance and feedback would be immensely valuable to me as I continue my journey as a Wikipedia contributor and I wanted to ask with respect, can I still add the portion for Gold Sheen Sapphire with more in depth citations .

Once again, I apologize for any inconvenience my edit may have caused, and I assure you that my intent is to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. Amandawhale12 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

First - we don't cite Wikipedia articles as they are not reliable sources; we may add links to related wiki articles - but they are not valid sources. Second - we must avoid "promotional" content. Parts of your edit appeared rather "promotional" to me. Be a neutral observer when you edit. Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi I’m a new editor here. Could you let me know what I’ve done wrong as I thought I’d done a decent job updating the intro. You say too many links - is that the internal wiki ones? Please let me know as I enjoy creating content but if it’s going to get deleted there’s no point:(

thanks

Silica Cat Silica Cat (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Silica Cat, taking a look at revisions on Paleozoic, I see the main thing that likely Vsmith was referring to. Wikipedia linking guidelines are that good practice is to link the first instance of a term that is a link candidate, while avoiding linking very common terms like Canada, Europe, river.--Kevmin § 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Am I ok to reinstate my edits and take out the unnecessary links then? Silica Cat (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi again I’ve looked at undoing the revert but am not familiar with the code. I don’t want to get it wrong so could someone be kind enough to do it for me please. Ironically I only added the extra links because they were in the original article (the one that’s been reinstated!). Thx Silica Cat (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since you served in the military at some point in your life, you may please refrain from editing peace pages. The same would be true for all war veterans, anywhere in the world and all through their lives.JohJiggs (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - but that is the dumbest request ever. Those who served know more about peace than anyone. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your changes because:

• You never started a discussion nor asked for consensus at WP:USCITIES prior to changing GNIS from "Populated Place" to "Civil" class in the infobox of numerous community articles.
• You never replied nor countered my comment in March 2023.
• The GNIS example in the infobox at WP:USCITIES is "Populated Place" class.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

hmm ... let's take an example: Phillipsburg, Kansas. I changed the data based on the current status of Phillipsburg as a city per the GNIS update (485642) which classifies Phillipsburg as a city rather than the older (471927) status which classifies it as a populated place. Seems rather obvious that the Wikipedia article should reflect the current status of the place as a city, rather than the old "populated place" status. I cannot see any reason that would be a problem. Or do you think we should have separate articles? That would be rather odd - the "populated place" is now a "city". Please explain. Vsmith (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

no response... perhaps sleeping after a long night of reverting ... or perhaps there is no valid response - just some form of "I don't like it"?? Vsmith (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I asked you to stop changing GNIS entries, because you haven't established consensus for the GNIS change at WP:USCITIES. There is no rule that requires editors to be on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, nor are there any rules that state you can ignore a request from another editor after a fraction of a day. Also, you personally attacked me with snarky comments, as well as going out of your way to start an edit war by flooding dozens of changes after an editor disagreed with you. Also, you ignored my comments about this same topic back in March 2023, then continued to change numerous articles behind my back. Let me make it blunt to you: stop changing GNIS, stop edit warring, stop insulting me, and establish consensus on this GNIS topic in the talk section of WP:USCITIES. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, I am simply editing articles to be aligned with their current GNIS listings. How is that disruptive? Vsmith (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good evening User:Sbmeirow. As you are aware, I am updating a number of Kansas community articles. I find it rather odd that the GNIS IDs for a large number of these cities and communities are the old the old ids, rather than the updated ones. For example the Almena article used the old 471748 GNIS ID rather than the updated 2393927 ID. I thought it best to use the most recent along with the data for the city/community supported by the new ID. I can see no reason for not using the newer classification on all community articles - and can not understand why you have decided to revert some of those changes. Please explain your rational for reverting those changes. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Originally, automated tools added most of the "Populated Place" GNIS entries in community articles around 2007 (per edit history). Both "Populated Place" GNIS and "Civil" GNIS entries have existed as far back as at least 2010 or so, when I first started editing. Back in that era, the "Populated Place" GNIS entries had the FIPS number, but the "Civil" GNIS entires didn't have FIPS number, thus is why the "Populated Place" GNIS entries was prefered. At some point in recent years, it appears the FIPS numbers were copied over to the "Civil" GNIS entries, but I wasn't aware this happened until now. After digging into this tonight, it appears that FIPS is now in the "Civil" GNIS entries, thus your change is less of a concern to me today than a few days ago. At this point, I'll let you continue on your merry little way changing the GNIS number in community articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing the research on that and letting me know the results. I do appreciate that. Vsmith (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I recently had user Cullen328 respond to my post on the teahouse with the following reply [10] using hateful and derogatory language. Since I am a new user I am not entirely sure I am going about handling this properly, any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

~~~ Dholt123 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It appears that the user in question (Cullen328) appears to have been indef blocked by another admin. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks. Dholt123 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Supergene (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogden, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anderson, Illinois.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please give me a reason for the reversion of my change.

I considered this was vandalism by Cambodian authors attacking Thai-related articles. See this discussion.

See the changes made from 2601:601:1b80:8040*.

• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:359d:f3b5:a9ed:78a1
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:4f77:9d09:6cad:b0d6
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:7285:eb63:42f9:a5ec
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:87ce:53e8:74d5:9edc
• Special:Contributions/2601:601:1b80:8040:7d33:5caf:402e:c12e

The source/citations provided from the change are incorrect. According to the same source in another language (TH) (LA), It just was an arbitrary combination and it doesn't mention the actual etymology. Even though it has the correct citation. It should've provided below the widely used word origins.

Also, the "Mekong" word etymology is confirmed in other page localizations. Even the Khmer page of this article mentions that the "Mekong" word is from Tai languages (Lao, Thai)

Thanks. 183.88.33.147 (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems that I observed an ip making a change to an article with no explanation and that also removed references and was questionable and I reverted. Simple as that. In the future please clarify your reasons for an edit with a clear edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

  Administrator changes

  Clovermoss

  Dennis Brown

 

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

 

  CheckUser changes

 

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

  Maxim

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

  Oversighter changes

 

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

  Maxim

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

  Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

  Administrator changes

 

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

 

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

  Bureaucrat changes

  Worm That Turned

 

  CheckUser changes

  Wugapodes

  Interface administrator changes

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

  Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes   Sdkb The Night Watch   East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes   SilkTork

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

  Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

  Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Hello:

I believe the image on the Acuminite article is actually iron oxide stained Thomsenolite. Specifically I believe it's a distorted photo of this specimen. [11]https://www.irocks.com/minerals/specimen/34344

I don't know that there is an actual photo of Acuminite.

This sometimes comes up as a photo of Acuminite [12]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/09/03/580903f91ebe3252541d352cb8f2f0e6.jpg

However that might actually be Wulfenite from Ivigtut and it is listed elsewhere as such.

2603:8000:1B00:8A20:A02F:D795:898:545F (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vsmith. Or do you like to be simply called "V". OK seriously. I don't know if you remember me. We had a brief discussion probably more than eleven years ago on your talk page about a new editor active in your field. And we may have edited some of the same articles. I just recalled, there was an article I created that had something to with Geophysics or something like that. And you and another editor were probably appalled but were too polite to say so. You both were merely critical. So, seeing your reaction I let both of you know I would request that the article be speedily deleted. And I did so. I think everyone involved was happy with the results.

Anyway, the real reason I am here is I am wondering how much you know about Geopolymers. (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

P.S. the citation below is not mine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't really know much about it, sorry 'bout that :) (and yeah that citation just kinda floats alng - don't recall what it was linked to ... Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks very much. This post may have been too long so I shortened it. I started to get caught up with this. It is best not to do that on Wikipedia. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

  Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

  Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

  Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

While my descriptions of "Fixed typos" were admittedly undetailed, in terms of the edits themselves, MOS:SUPERSCRIPT states any superscript that does not denote a phonetic transcription and is not in a title, short description, or conversion template should be written using sup templates rather than unicode superscript characters. CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heh, yeah, sometimes the MOS sorta makes no sense - as in "take something simple and make it complex". So it goes ... :) --Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shanghai, West Virginia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Nyttend

 

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

  Bureaucrat changes

  Nihonjoe

 

  CheckUser changes

  Joe Roe

  Oversight changes

  GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

  Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Graham Beards

 

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

  Bureaucrat changes

 

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

 

  Oversight changes

  Dreamy Jazz

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

  Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

  Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Hi can you see thi subject and i would ask you if it is notable and thanks Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to have plenty of reference possibilities. Why do you ask? Vsmith (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

just i would ask you if can help and create this draft with many thanks Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the topic has wide and significant coverage in several languages Actiondramlovers (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, not in my field of interest. Good luck! Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi I was looking at Russell, North Dakota and I noticed you add the historical population table, but I can't seem to figure out where you found the data. So any help would be helpful. Bennett27 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Err no that wasn't you, sorry. Bennett27 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you be interested in working on this draft with me? I was going to base it off of the Oxford handbook of economic imperialism but I'm not familiar with the literature enough. I could probably squeeze something out, structure it okay, but it'd be low quality Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No thanks, not in my field of interest.--Vsmith (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

 

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

  Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

  Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Isabelle Belato

 

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

  Interface administrator changes

  Izno

 

  CheckUser changes

  Barkeep49

  Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

I've started a discussion on the talk page about your unexplained revert. Please join the conversation! 107.116.165.18 (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi I would ask you are interesting in this <redacted crap> and creating article about him ? Ilovethehistory9 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No ... Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Pppery

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery

 

  Oversighter changes

  Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

 

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

  Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Domino, Texas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you semi-protect Missouri article for a year. 2600:381:7B90:129D:E1A9:DCD4:E8A7:9F5F (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done.--Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don’t archive this post in case the vandalism resumes after this protection and we’ll need to indef semi Missouri article 2603:8080:D03:89D4:D406:99F6:B4C2:6570 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't the protection to be a year. I want it to be indefinite because vandalism has been going on forever 2603:8080:D03:89D4:E40C:F0FD:39E3:5EA1 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It will be fine to be a year. 2600:381:7B90:129D:4CDD:6C1A:BB56:4F83 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The vandalism will likely resume after this protection 2603:8080:D03:89D4:B8BB:1CB7:79BA:CEB1 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

please explain why you reverted my change in language to the homo naledi page 2601:14D:8A00:A4E0:3C6D:426:67F2:F28A (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any edits to that page by the complaining IP. My edit there was restoring the word "genders" rather than "sexes". Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes, that's the edit i'm referring to. please explain why you chose to change the language back 2601:14D:8A00:A4E0:4197:E232:43CF:E468 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because "gender" would be the appropriate term. Vsmith (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fly River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plantain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

 

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

  CheckUser changes

 

• Barkeep49
• Izno

 

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

  Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

  Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Hi, Vsmith. I wonder if you could help us out.

Since 9 September, Aaghdam1722 (talk · contribs) has made unsourced changes to many climate boxes (e.g., just in the last 3 days: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Even when they add a fresh climate box to an article, it fails verification: they only provide a top-level link with no details on which weather station the data comes from (e.g., [20]). After some sleuthing, I found the corresponding weather station ("Wickiup Dam") and its data did not correspond to the data added by Aaghdam1722 (see [21]). The editor is adding unverifiable data to WP, causing a large amount of cleanup work.

Magnolia677 asked the editor to stop this behavior on 30 September ([22]). The editor did not respond and kept making unsourced changes. I gave the editor a final warning today ([23]) and tried to explain why it's important to source this data and asked them to engage and explain where their data is coming from ([24]). They did not respond, but have continued to make unsourced edits after the warning ([25], [26]).

I believe that a (temporary?) block is in order, to get them to stop this behavior and explain where the data is coming from. I also need some time to clean up their mess, and it would be helpful if they stopped adding to the mess. Do you think the block is warranted? If so, would you be willing to block them? Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked Vsmith (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Crisco 1492

 

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

  Maxim

  Oversighter changes

  Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

  Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

  Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

  Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

might have had something more than vogon poetry - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Border_reivers&curid=442848&action=history. - if the allusion is slippery - apologies JarrahTree 11:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tabiona, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charleston, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Enoch, Utah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply