User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cite Q and sfn

Hi, I noticed that in your edit summary for Enos (Book of Mormon prophet) you mentioned that Cite Q doesn't support sfn. I asked about it three months ago on the Cite Q talk page and Trappist the monk said it was supported. I and my team of student editors have been using Cite Q with sfn references without issues that I've seen. We have been using Cite Q in creative ways though--was that particular instance creating an error of some kind? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to be using such short form references I suggest turning in the associated error messages. Details of how to do so can be found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. There are two types of errors, no-target errors, and multi-target errors. The former happens when there is no cite to link with, and the latter when there is more than one possible cite to link with (for instance two works with the same author and publication year).
Using cite Q with short form refs such as {{sfn}} or {{harv}} causes false positive no-target errors. This is due to cite Q being implemented without taking short form references into account. The cite is there but system can't see it. The solution is to add |last= and |date= to the cite, which clears the error and doesn't effect the cite in anyway.
The actual fields might be author or last, and date or year depending on how the wikidata is setup -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Also you shouldn't replace normal cites with cite Q en masse. It's fine if you're completely rewriting the article or in an article you have started, but otherwise you should follow the style already in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

We are not replacing citations en masse. I looked at the other pages where we used sfn with cite Q, and I don't think they usually create no-target errors--we usually use sfnref with cite q to ensure this doesn't happen, but my student forgot to include sfnref on the Enos page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the ref field will also surprise the false positives. There's a technical reason for why this happens that I won't go into, hopefully at some point it will go away. I've been working through the backlog of such errors for the lastest 18 months or so, and once it's cleared hipe to push for a patch so the false positives no longer happen.
Sorry my comment on cite Q came off more accusatory then I meant it. It was meant as a word of caution, as they don't have full community support, rather than to say you were doing anything wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page comment

I was a bit confused by your comment on my talk page? Number 57 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The video creator has an axe to grind, and it's not a new one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

FMG

What is your source for dismissing FMG as a reliable source for medieval genealogy? It does have a number of academics and receives funding from the UK Government. I am aware of the discussions on Wikitree, which could be summed up by saying no source on its own is infallible and all should be read critically and compared. You may be aware that someone else just removed Wikitree as unreliable, which seems a bit unfair since its medieval project is not only tightly controlled but also pretty critical of sources. Which of course leaves us with the burning question of what exactly does Wikipedia accept as "reliable"? Imperfect sources are sometimes better than none. Maybe that is a question for further discussion by the project. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry not my opinion, the reliability of Medlands has been discussed extensively over years. It is not published by FMG who are a reliable source, they just host it. It's indiscriminate use of primary sources has been criticised both here and off wiki. I've not heard of wikitree before you mentioned it, but it's appears to fall under WP:User generated content and so wouldn't be reliable. WP:Sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, who finds them has absolutely no impact on whether they should be considered reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As I suspected, there is some confusion about Wikitree. There is a world of difference between people making up their own family tree, and people researching historical sources, which is the case with Wikitree's Medieval Project. I will look further for discussions on Medlands here - I had expected it might be on WikiProject Middle Ages, where I raised the issue of having a reliable database of sources for users. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Medlands has been heavily discussed on WP:RSN you can search the archives there. There was also a lot of discussion on the talk page of a template that used to exist for it, however that has been deleted as part of the clean up processes of removing the source.
I based my comments on wikitree on the fact that anyone can create an account and then edit the site, such site will very nearly never be considered a reliable source. If the contributors list is kept to only experts who have previously been published by other independent reliable sources it could be considered reliable under WP:Self-published sources, but you would need to show that that is the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to the debate on lists of airlines and destinations in airport articles, going back to when I first posted on the issue at RSN. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

) Erzan (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous, the matter has only been under discussion for less than half a day. Let some time pass so that any other interested editors can have their say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The matter has been under discussion since October 2023. This is a continuation of the same disagreement. If you no longer wish to engage, I will follow what has been discussed on between another editor on RfC, who has dropped their objection, and edit accordingly. Erzan (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy in real life. As I mentioned elsewhere you made two comments last October and then stopped replying after being asked a question. To say it has been under discussion since October just isn't true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Dear heart, I need to add a reference that is by someone already in the sources list, published in the same year, but a different volume. Can you remind me how to do that? I number something somehow? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You just need to add a letter to the year, so |date=2019a and |date=2019b for instance. And then just make sure to add the appropriate letter to the refs so they match. You can use |volume= for the volume information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you thank you!! And thank you for my cookies! They were delicious of course! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Applause!

Applause, more applause and cheers! You have bailed me out more times than I can count. Thank you.

You are amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

HELP Please!

I know you're busy, but I have made some kind of error citing an encyclopedia on History of Christianity and I cannot figure out why. It's reference #207. Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You had me stumped for a second, as it's ref #183 now. But it's fixed[1], unless you use last and year you just have to setup the |ref= field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

183?! What the heck? I'm sorry, I must have edited out something after contacting you. My God - what would I do without you?! From an absolutely selfish motive I exclaim that you must never quit Wikipedia!!!

You know, you have taught me enough that I guessed it had something to do with the ref= but I had no idea about the harvid thing. What exactly is that btw?

You are the best. Thank you. I am still drowning in Christian History, but starting to tread water a little. Thank you for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All that {{harvid}} does is correctly format the link. The correct link would be formatted as CITEREFEasternChristianity2024, but that a pain to type so harvid just makes it easier as you just copy in the format you used in the ref "|Eastern Christianity|2024".

Harvid is really a redirect to {{sfnref}}, but I always gind harvid easier to remember.
Happy to hear your making progress, I'm always here if it can help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Pakistan Military Monitor

I trust everything's smooth sailing on your end. While the discussion has subsided and I don't intend to reignite it, but I'd like to remind you of this so share your thoughts about TPMM when you have the time. I love to hear your perspective on this source. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Saqib I was hoping to have more time for Wikipedia editing, but life is keeping me busy. Please accept my apologies and continue the discussion without me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Template fix

Thank you very much for your fix at ANI. Goddam bots! Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

Help with Antioch

Hi there, would you be willing to look at the Antioch International Movement of Churches article and see how my collaborator there is intepreting your remarks at RSN? That page could really use the attention of an experienced editor such as yourself. I'm a bit over my head in dealing with dispute resolution there, and it's only me and one other editor. No worries if you can't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I see Starship.paint has already helped out, they are much better qualified than I for such things. I've made a few edits and replied at the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also added the page toy watch list for the next week. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how qualified I am. I am also busy, so I'd leave this link here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested for your help. starship.paint (RUN) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Scouting issues at ANI

Hi, Just a couple of quick questions now that the Graywalls etc discussion seems to have died down...

I was surprised to see that the boomerang re: unsubstantiated personal attacks didn't gain more support than it did (and also surprised and disappointed to see that one of the users was able to derail it by repeatedly lying and generally talking nonsense).

Why do you think that the issue failed to get any traction?

Also, any thoughts on why the issue of whether or not Evrik started the thread while logged out was dismissed as being inappropriate?

Of course the issues here are all ancient history now and the thread is as good as closed, but I just wondered about these two points for my own understanding of how ANI tends to work. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The admins just like any other editor have their own personal opinions and ideas, and like any other editor can't be made to edit. Some may have believed that Graywall, even if they were not wrong, should have followed a different method. Others may have just be put off by the constant back and forth, or just been to busy elsewhere. Another thing is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not laws, and ANI is not a court. It's a place to consider and discuss editors behave, it doesn't hand out 'justice'. So it's workings can be a bit chaotic, it does work most of the time but sometimes it might not work immediately. Ultimately you make your piece and see if anyone agrees, in this case no one agreed with the initial report or subsequent proposal.
As to who opened the discussion and whether it was evrik it's a question that shouldn't be asked. IP addresses can be resolved to approximate physical locations, so linking them to an editor or asking and editor to link them treads dangerously close to doxxing (see WP:DOXXING). There is also the possibility that it was all a Joe job, there are trolls who try to create drama at ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks.

In retrospect it was unfortunate that the unsubstantiated allegations issue (that we both raised) probably obscured the more significant points to emerge from that thread - which were the walled garden that certain scouting articles seem to have become and the issues re: sourcing, COI, etc.

It will be interesting to see if anyone has the stomach to try to resolve those issues at the individual articles. It won't be easy given the regular canvassing employed by Evrik to distort consensus.

Hopefully there will be more eyes on those articles as a result of the recent thread - and that can only be for the best...

Oh well, thanks again for your thoughts, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Lehrmann

G'day mate Can you do me a favour a seek autoconfirmed protection for the article. I've just noticed an IP has added rapist into the first sentence of the lede again. I'd seek the protection myself but I've just gone to bed and only have my phone. Cheers, TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested here. Can't say I have much sympathy for the subject of the article, but it's getting out of hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lists of airline destinations

Hi ActivelyDisinterested, you suggested in this deletion review to have an RfC that would act as a de facto AfD. While I like this idea, I'm concerned that it would make things confusing; some of the list articles (e.g. Aeroflot) contain prose that would have to be copied to the parent article first, and then the list would have to be redirected rather than deleted per WP:PATT. After the 2018 RfC there was an attempt to delete all the lists at once, which created chaos (also, two of the lists were WP:FL at the time, and there was the issue of limited participation).

Could I ask your opinion on treating the RfC only as an RfC, but leaving notices on every stand-alone list to ensure adequate participation? Subsequent AfDs would still be required. I believe it would be easy to bundle lists like Spirit Airlines, but ones like Aeroflot may require individual AfDs or at least smaller bundles (to show that the prose has been dealt with appropriately). This is assuming the RfC results in a consensus that the lists don't belong on Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional caution and notification is a good idea. Taking it slow and making sure everyone has a say will hopefully lead to less contention in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

A date being "banned" in a TALK PAGE!!

Does this really seem like the behaviour of a reasonable person? Regarding : NIKKI BENZ 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Again they are correct. It may seem strange but Wikipedia takes anything related to a living person very serious, the policy on it (WP:Biographies of living persons or BLP in short hand) applies to every page on Wikipedia not just the articles. That would include not displaying personal information unless it has already been widely reported or stated by the subject. What I would suggest is finding some good sources for the date of birth, and discussing them on the articles talk page. Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project, try to understand other editors concerns (even if they seem unreasonable) and work with to come to something you can both agree on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User Sangdeboeuf is not engaging responsibly 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I won't stop. Grow up. Isn't very friendly either. The more fuel is put on the fire the more it burns. Spend some time finding sources, come back and prove your right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have put sources. And again I am not even adding it to the article, but to have the date REMOVED from a talk page, how is that conducive to a discussion, when the date in question can't even be mentioned? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

IP, which part of "BLP policy ... applies to all pages, including talk pages" (patiently explained by me and ActivelyDisinterested above) are you having trouble with? There's nothing special about a random calendar date. How does naming it help the discussion? What's important is whether the sources are reliable or not. The sources you've linked are generally trash. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the sources on the talk page and comment there further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Suissa & Sullivan

My guess is that it has nothing to do with how that paper is being used on this page but that the editor doesn't want to see it successfully challenged as WP:PROFRINGE because of its use on other pages.

[2]

Suissa & Sullivan managing to publish this bit of free-speech trolling in a prestigious journal has been very useful for sympathetic representations of famous bigots. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Simonm223 Rowling's page is one of the areas I really don't want to get involved with. I stand by my comment at RSN, but have no comment to make on the wider issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of your comment

I didn't mean to delete....something went haywire. I got an EC when first trying to post my comment and when I went to redo somehow it was already in there and I just pressed the button. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries I was EC'd twice while posting (I started with a longer comment and then cut most of it). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

revision

That must have been an edit conflict, I marked it with underline as a change from the original. Valereee (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll strike my request not to change comments that have been replied to, but leave the note explainingy different replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, happens all the time. Valereee (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

MISC

@ActivelyDisinterested Hello, how do I make the CiteHighlighter mark this in green since it seems to be reliable per some of opinions, including yours. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, it doesn't need to be green. Most reliable sources won't be green, as only discussed sources are highlighted and most reliable sources will never have been discussed (as there is no need). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for this. Indeed, I misunderstand. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested for improving Gatu

by any chance do you know how to fix the image to show the main image instead of the autograph. When searched it shows his autograph instead of his picture DanielHicksAss (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one is beyond me, I suggest asking at the Village Pump which has a section for technical questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Guidance Barnstar
	Hello from Pakistan! Your consistent help at WP:RSN is invaluable. Awarding you a barnstar with huge thanks for all your reliable source wisdom! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Would an RfC be the way to go for this RS?

Greetings AD! I know you are active on the RS noticeboard, so I was wondering if you could provide the steps you would take in this situation.

Looking through the older archives, there are several discussions related to The Associated Press and it's reliability. However, I could only find one brief discussion with two editors regarding AP and it's celebrity birthday section. [3]

The issue is that I've noticed a considerable amount of errors with the lists that the AP provides, and want to do an RfC regarding it. Would you do a discussion first as an RFCBEFORE to possibly prevent needing an RfC, or go straight for the RfC since there are several discussions regarding AP already in a separate context?

Considering it is a widely used source for birthdays of BLP subjects, I wanted to go about this the right way. And I figured I would ask the resident RS expert :D lol.

Thanks in advance for any advice! Awshort (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's always best to go for discussion first. The idea is to try and avoid bureaucracy, and RFCs are the most bureaucratic method for building consensus. By having a discussion first it's sometimes possible to completely avoid an RFC.

The best RSN posts are clear and to the point. You want to show a clear tendency to the dates being wrong. So AP says X and another absolutely reliable source says Y and show Y is correct, repeat. It would also help immensely if you can show other sources questioning APs reliability on birth dates.

Remember a source being wrong sometimes doesn't make it unreliable, you need to show it's a clear issue with APs birth dates and that these issues aren't being corrected. A newspaper that publishes incorrect information, but later retracts and corrects themselves are seen as more reliable for doing so.

If discussion doesn't provide satisfaction, then a RFC could be warranted. Here the discussion is again useful, as it can be referred to for details during the RFC.

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have spent a lot of my editing time looking at referencing and trying to match it to Wikipedia's policies. I noticed many of the minor questions at RSN going unanswered, which is how I ended up so active there ('help where you can, because you can'). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

RSN - a small thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for your comments at RSN. I don't disagree. I'm going to add a reply with a brief explanation, which also highlights some of the issues that I see with arguments presented earlier in the discussion. But first wanted to say that your comments were genuinely appreciated. Thank you for being the tsukkomi to my boke; the Abbott to my Costello. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've remained outside of the RSN discussion until now, as it has had good attendance and there were other threads to be answered. But I fear that unless it's brought to a conclusion it will just wander on endlessly. It seems the issue has moved from Lockley's work, so I'm going to make a suggest that it's closed and archived. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Greatly appreciated. I agree that it would be preferable for the discussion to be brought to an end.

For clarity, is the suggestion that it be closed with a particular consensus as to the use of the source at the core of the discussion? If so, what would you suggest that consensus should be? If no particular consensus, perhaps just archived without formal closure would be better. Rotary Engine ^talk 16:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A formal close would need to be requested, I'm certainly don't have the skill to close something as confused and longwinded as this. I'm suggesting to just archive it, if instead a close is desired it can be requested at WP:Closure requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not overly opposed to just archiving it. I do worry that the dispute on reliability of the source will linger. But, if so, that can be addressed by making a closure request in the future. Rotary Engine ^talk 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies that the discussion continues on and on, without sign of abatement. FWIW, I have tried to keep clear of it. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a RFC on the matter on the Yasuke talk page, that way it can be a definitive answer rather than going over the same points endlessly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to a new RFC, specifically focused on the reliability of L&G's book. But, without some careful admin curation, I foresee that it's likely to end up a repeat of the same arguments. In which case it will need an experienced closer to cut through the chaff.

In other news, I fear I may have to bring the topic back to RSN, for a broader discussion of the use of Twitter as a source for statements of fact. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The use of Twitter, other social media and self-published sources are covered by WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SPS. Basically they can be reliable when the comments are about themselves (somewhat unlikely in this case), or if the poster is a subject matter expert that has been previously published in independent reliable sources. Such uses are best used with attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Armenian literature, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but my activity in the area has generally been correcting technical issues with referencing rather content. So I don't think I would be able to help much. If you do come across any technical issues or errors I would always be willing to help in anyway I can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

I wanted to stop by and express my appreciation for your participation on Talk:Lucy Letby. We're not in agreement on everything, but your contributions stand out to me as consistently civil and balanced in the middle of a lot of contention and tense feelings. Thanks for being a good person to collaborate with. — Moriwen (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

off-site discussion

My addition of {{high traffic}} to Nikki Benz may be germane to your interests. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Reddit users will be reddit users. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be so reductive as to just roll my eyes and mutter, "people", but you're definitely not wrong. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Fourthords It's ok if you want to mention the specific articles and details at NOR (it's on my watchlist). My edit was to try and stop the constant addition of an unsourced DOB, I'm happy to have it reviewed (or reverted if necessary). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that WT:NOR inquiry's far less about your edits/that Reddit post generally, as its about this particilar thread that stemmed from it. I've never seen such claims made before, and they're both assured and novel enough, I thought I'd ask. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

duprefs

Did you see User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences? Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't, it's adding a lot of tags that are false positives. You may want to work on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at for uses of |page=, |pages=, |at=, or their text equivalents would close out at lot of the issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point! I think I fixed it (by ignoring all books, which is easier than to check page numbers). It is still very much a work in progress so any feedback is much appreciated. Polygnotus (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Dan Harkless

Hello, this user used bare reasons written in article talk for re-add his very mistaken tags, even that other user says that are an unexistent "contradiction" in the "Dan Harkless" problematic content, demonstrating lack of understainding in his procedure. Difuarti (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Difuarti I really don't mean to be rude, but it's painfully obvious that English isn't your first language. You shouldn't be removing the tags, as the changes you have made are in very broken English.

I'm going to retire the tags, you should discuss the issue on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 17:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

page revert alert

Want to notify you that 4B movement was reverted by another IP editor against the concensus a week later, to add the wiki link yet again. I think at this stage WP:SEMI should be considered, as it seems like an attempt to avoid detection. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This could just be a good faith editor trying to add a reference for the text. I've reverted it for the moment, I'll add a reason to the tag to explain the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Defender of the wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For unearthing falsified references that persisted in the Elias Khoury biography for nearly five years. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this better

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion?

If you would like to move our brief exchange down to the Discussion section, I have no objection to your moving my comment along with moving/editing yours. I agree it does look out of place up there. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave my original comment in place, as there is a general misunderstanding of what deprecation involves. No objections to moving the rest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would maintain that there are differences between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated", even if no edit filter is set:

1. "Deprecated" signals that the judgment was the result of an RfC, rather than a more limited discussion between editors. Given that this is an RfC, the distinction is germane.
2. The words "generally prohibited" are only used with respect to deprecated sources (they are used both in the WP:DEPREC summary and at WP:DEPS#Effects_of_deprecation). They are not to my knowledge used with respect to WP:GUNREL sources – at any rate, they are not used in the WP:GUNREL summary nor in WP:QUESTIONABLE, the WP:RS section the summary links to.

To me, that makes the distinction worthwhile and more than academic. YMMV. Andreas JN466 14:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that 1/. is important, deprecation only happens through RFC so any deprecation shows it must have come from an RFC is true, but that isn't a point about a sources reliability. As to 2/. yes the 'generally prohibited' statement only appears in deprecation, but it's a pretty weak point, if you try using sources that have a strong RFC consensus of being unreliable you would quickly find that their use is prohibited.

Please note I'm not saying that editors shouldn't be of the opinion that the source should be deprecated, but rather that it's not misapplied as that could muddle the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I take your point on muddling. Best, Andreas JN466 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Update on a question you had asked...

Hi, this is just a courtesy post to inform you of a development re: a question you had asked back in August.

At an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (here [4]) a paid COI editor had attempted to get a particular source deprecated. You had asked, quite correctly, What is the purpose of this RFC?

That question can now be answered as yesterday the paid COI editor made a COI edit request [5], asking for the removal of a number of paragraphs (adverse to their client) on the basis of the contents of that RfC. I'm not sure if they made the request solely on the basis of that RfC, but it seems fairly clear that that was the purpose of the RfC.

The COI edit request in question has since been deleted by another user who considered it inappropriate. I’m not sure if that was entirely correct procedurally but I can certainly appreciate that user’s sentiment.

The paid COI editor works for a company who describe themselves as only using “White Hat” practices. I've had some concern on that point for a while, as I note that on their website (specifically here [6]) they advertise something rather akin to astroturfing as a surface they can provide (which I personally don't consider a "White Hat" practice, although opinions may differ - I'd say it was at best "grey"). The activity above appears to be a kind of reverse astroturfing (i.e. where the RS nature of the sourcing of existing adverse info is questioned with a view to removal, as opposed to creating an online RS source containing positive info with a view to inclusion).

Given your question back in August I wondered if you might take a look at the COI edit request and let me know your thoughts? No urgency, just whenever you should have the opportunity... Axad12 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I meant to say "service they can provide" rather than "surface they can provide". Apologies. Axad12 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I was impressed by the editors behaviour. It was obvious that they were trying to get sources pre-judged so they could use that to further job they were employed to do. This goes against the 'edit first' ideas in WP:CONSENSUS.

Most editors aren't paid for their contributions and their time shouldn't be needlessly taken up by those that are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't to say editors of the article should simply dismiss the concerns expressed, editors should check if there are any issues to be resolved, but that editors should deal with those concerns based on policy and judgement. Noticeboards are meant to be third opinion, used when further input is needed, not as a way to circumvent discussion elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Any thoughts on whether placing positive stories in tame media (i.e. astroturfing) is a "White Hat" activity? Axad12 (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer an opinion, but I will say that if I needed help with PR I wouldn't use a service dedicated to Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. And that correctly implies that placing positive stories in tame media is a standard PR tactic, and that the Wikipedia definition of astroturfing (at least insofar as it effects issues like RS) is just a rather irrelevant side effect of a standand PR tactic in the real world.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Thanks I hadn't thought of it like that before. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)