User talk:Beetstra: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 108: Line 108:
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
|}
[[User:{{{nominator}}}]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
[[User:Newslinger]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:I nominate Beetstra to be Editor of the Week for their herculean efforts to curtail [[WP:SPAM|spam]] and unwanted content on Wikipedia. Beestra's stewardship of the spam [[WP:SPB|blacklist]] and [[WT:WHITELIST|whitelist]] over the years has been instrumental to safeguarding Wikipedia against [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]]. Beetstra also maintains two anti-spam [[WP:BOT|bots]]: {{np|COIBot}}, which monitors edits that may be affected by [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]], and {{np|XLinkBot}}, which reverts the addition of links to [[WP:QS|questionable sources]] that are frequently abused. On the content side, Beetstra has contributed to the [[WP:CHEMS|Chemicals]], [[WP:CHEM|Chemistry]], and [[WP:PHARM|Pharmacology]] WikiProjects with {{np|CheMoBot}}, which audits the integrity of data in [[MOS:IBX|infoboxes]]. Overall, Beetstra has made a big difference in Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|reliability]], ensuring that our articles are a trustworthy resource for our readers.
:{{{nominationtext}}}
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>

Revision as of 06:49, 11 November 2019





















Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there

Dirk Beetstra        
Wikipedia ad for Template:Wikipedia ads
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #167
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports
Responding

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.

ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL

There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

  • If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
  • Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz).
  • Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
  • Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.

Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert

I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.

Email from Kolega2357

Hello, Beetstra. 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.

Hello Sir,

Whitelisting of CEE

Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Lawrencekhoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sakuntala (Claudel) (2)

It seems to me as if this is now more or less OK even if there seems to be rather too much emphasis on recent auctions. Thanks, btw, for pointing to the links under references. They had bothered me too and I had already started working on them when you came along. I think I have now sorted them out. (They were not in fact external links but actual references to the details in the article itself. Once upon a time, this was a pretty standard approach to referencing.) As you seem to be a pretty competent admin and keen to support coverage of women and women's works, I was wondering if you could help me out with another problem I have been asked to deal with. One of the keen new contributors to Women in Red has asked me if she can write an article on Clarice Phelps. As you may remember, the biography was deleted on more than one occasion causing some pretty violent reactions from the press. There have however been important new developments as you will see from her nomination for the IUPAC Periodic Table and "ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element". For me, these really seem to confirm her notability. Just as with Sakuntala we could create a completely new article but it has been suggested that in regard to Draft:Clarice E. Phelps we should "request a lifting of the salting". As I have absolutely no experience with salting or desalting I would appreciate your assistance. Otherwise you could perhaps let me know whether it is still permissible to create a completely new article along the lines of Sakuntala.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, I guess I would make sure that the draft is properly ready to be moved back, and then ping TonyBallioni to lift the protection (unless he doesn’t mind others to do so). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you quick response but Tony has told me he doesn't want to be involved. If we work on the draft, can we rely on you to take it through desalting? If not, is it permissible to create a completely new article and ask you to see it through?--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I would then work on the draft and get that approved, otherwise we may get to merge the histories later. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and understanding responses on Women in Red. I think we should see how the story evolves over the next day or two but in order to avoid copyvios, there might be a case for the userfication (add to new dictionary entries) of some of the deleted articles. No rush, let's just see how it all develops over the next few days. Tot ziens.--Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, again, I am very strongly against undeletion. Banned means banned. Banned = 'we don't want you to edit here'. Banned is not 'we don't want you to edit here, but we keep your stuff if you are editing anyway'. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you available for recall? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I see no reason for that. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 You want to recall someone for following Wikipedia policy? In that case, you'd have to add everyone else that's taken part in deleting Slowking's restoration of SvG articles, which includes at least one Arb and a steward. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with vandalous IP edits

I just want to mention this comment I inserted into a discussion in reaction to a comment of yours in case you missed my insertion. I wish I had a solution to suggest, but I don't. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell, thanks. I noticed the remark. I agree that a problem exists, but people seem to think that that problem is too small to be of interest, and that 'everyone can edit' and 'IP do good stuff' automatically means that IPs must be able to edit, forgetting that everyone can still edit after making an account, and that that IP editor could also have done their good stuff if they first make an account and then edit. Yes, you will lose some/a lot (?) who do not want to make an account, but that number is unknown to us. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beating this dead horse just a bit more, take a look at some of these: { [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]}, which were among vandalous IP edits I reverted between 0815 and 0819 EST on 30 October. Edits like these, unless caught and promptly reverted by vandal patrollers, hang around for a while and go a long ways towards contributing to and justifying Wikipedia's image of unreliability. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wtmitchell, “ ... but IPs do a lot of good, and we will loose ALL of that if you disallow them to edit ...” [citation needed]</sarcasm>. It is a dead horse indeed. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Von Eschen

Just checking to see if it was OK to create the article on Penny Von Eschen recently deleted as being created by a blocked user. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, yes, creation from scratch is fine. —Dirk Beetstra T C 21:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Newslinger submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Beetstra to be Editor of the Week for their herculean efforts to curtail spam and unwanted content on Wikipedia. Beestra's stewardship of the spam blacklist and whitelist over the years has been instrumental to safeguarding Wikipedia against external link spamming. Beetstra also maintains two anti-spam bots: COIBot, which monitors edits that may be affected by conflicts of interest, and XLinkBot, which reverts the addition of links to questionable sources that are frequently abused. On the content side, Beetstra has contributed to the Chemicals, Chemistry, and Pharmacology WikiProjects with CheMoBot, which audits the integrity of data in infoboxes. Overall, Beetstra has made a big difference in Wikipedia's reliability, ensuring that our articles are a trustworthy resource for our readers.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 06:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beetstra&oldid=925616909"