User talk:JPxG

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article, or even the talk page for an encyclopedia article. It is a miserable little pile of secrets. Do not consult it for term papers, doctoral dissertations, Congressional committee reports, ecumenical statements, et cetera. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror, or one of those ersatz knockoff sites that make fake profiles of Wikipedia editors and claim them as users. Be aware that the page may be outdated, or stupid, and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPxG.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

FYI, see User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 10#Redirecting Where is Kate? to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health and User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15#Recreation of Where is Kate? for some of the side discussions that went on around that. My impression was that there was a strong sense among some that BLP expected, if not demanded, the revisions be hidden. I didn't agree with that consensus, but my recreation of a redirect after deletion was not intended to circumvent it. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp×g🗯️ 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, sorry: in other words, I don't care and have no objections from a BLP perspective. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday? Svampesky (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp×g🗯️ 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?) Svampesky (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp×g🗯️ 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked. Svampesky (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community. Svampesky (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp×g🗯️ 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JPxG, can you please have a look at Talk:Aimee_Knight#POV_Violations_by_user which was started by an IP editor. From my observation the opening statement contains some pretty egregious BLP violations which need to be redacted and then every diff between the statement and the redaction revdelled. TarnishedPath^talk 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Yeah, I will take a look at it. Looks like a total mess over there tbdesu... jp×g🗯️ 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx TarnishedPath^talk 22:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JPxG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that was a Good™ Block. Thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 09:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did have a moment of uncertainty, honestly, but I just decided to go with it... jp×g🗯️ 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HooptyBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 12:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Please see my edit to User:JPxG/index and figure out how to get SDZeroBot not to reinsert the incorrect table opening line, which is not needed because the following line actually opens the table. Same issue with User talk:JPxG/index. —Anomalocaris (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, your redrawing of the image wouldn't be a speedy if uploaded here instead of Commons, though it probably wouldn't get kept at FFD. It is unquestionably fair-use (in the sense of being allowable under US law, not in the sense of it not being allowable on WMF sites) and has a stronger case for that if hosted here instead of at Commons. —Cryptic 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is just an issue of exhaustion more than anything else: there are hundreds of Signpost articles with illustrations on Commons, and there are so many arbitrary differences (either in the actual policy or in house interpretations of what are nominally supposed to be identical policies) that it's basically worthless to try to beat back the tide. Sometimes it is a license being on the image description page but not in the right template field, sometimes it is a person batch-nominating 100 images for no apparent reason, sometimes it is a vandal smashing their keyboard: the only constant is that it consumes a gigantic amount of time because I have to go personally respond to it every time. Presumably you are enforcing the Commons policies evenly and in line with consensus there -- I just find said policy/consensus to be unreasonably difficult and inconsistent. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The remover is right, the article [2] does seem to be gone, and I can't get to it through archives. Now I'm curious why, as I remember, it wasn't that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see html note jp×g🗯️ 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove IP's talk page access after [6], [7] and [8] Meters (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And [9] Meters (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Epic hrrmery", as they say. Oh well. Rack 'em! jp×g🗯️ 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see everything removed from view. Meters (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]