Jump to content

User talk:Srich32977

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chetrasho (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 5 May 2018 (→Original Research?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and in in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I'm thinking of nominating USS North Carolina (BB-55) for GA review. Do you think it would pass? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: I will take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: You'll sea I did a few edits and added hints. Basically the prose needs improvement IOT convey more helpful info to the reader. For example, she got hit by a torpedo, but did the armor save her? Was the hull penetrated? What repairs did the crew do? Similarly, the prose for post-WWII needs improvement. Does "holes" actually mean empty compartments? What has happened, verses what's going to happen with her as a museum ship? Can the single sentence paragraphs be combined? I'll put the article on my watchlist. And feel free to ping me. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I work on it for a while. Could you also take a look at HNoMS Kjell? On another note, this is the third time I don't get notified by pings, so I'll have to check my preferences. Thankfully I watched your talk page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd amendment edit

Hello SRich32977,

I am new to adding an edit to Wikipedia so I ask your indulgence please. The recent edit that I had entered was reverted from the official site related to the 2nd Amendment as it relates to a recent ruling in 2017.

The wiki page does does not show any recent update related to the topic of consideration as it relates specifically to post DC v Heller and the Fourth Circuit Court (2017) decision. The updated edit submitted indicated a settled and decided case from 2017 Fourth Circuit court. The following link is a reference to a viable and credibly recognized source. [1]

This is not the only source of reference for this legal decision in reference to this case. If the original Court link for the decision is needed, that would be helpful to know.

My question is in the interest of accuracy and reference to currently sourced information. Is this not one of the primary tenants of Wikipedia? Perhaps I have mistakenly misunderstood the purpose of this site.

The reason I am asking is that I received a response back to the edit I had submitted. The response referenced to visit your talk page as a part of a reverted edit. Your response referenced that the edit was specifically "NOT CONSTRUCTIVE".

If the the edit submitted is deemed not constructive yet is a matter of documented court record (ie. not opinion) as it relates to established law from more than 1 year ago (ie. 2017), I would be quite interested in knowing all fairness how exactly this would not be considered constructive in addition to being considered relevant to the topic it was entered for as it relates to a final court decision NOT LISTED in the post Heller section.

If there is a specific style of edit needed, I would appreciate again in the interest of accuracy and currency of the topic, assistance in getting the proper style of edit submitted.

Your gracious and considerate response would be appreciated. I look forward to your reply. Thank You.

Sincerely, Rch000 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Rch000[reply]

@Rch000: Thanks for your inquiry. The 2017 case you discuss is an en banc affirmation of the 2016 case already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Thus repeating it is not helpful to the reader. Also, we should be using WP:SECONDARY sources for the WP summary of the case rather than engaging in our own (editor's) interpretation of what the cases say. E.g., the decisions are WP:PRIMARY, and must be used with caution. What you might do is edit the paragraph for the 2016 case – something like "The 2016 decision was affirmed en banc in 2017 with the court focusing on ....." You don't need to cite justia.com as the WP:RS; instead a newspaper source or law review article would be preferred. Regarding my messages to your talk page, please forgive me if they don't address specific problems. These are templated messages which don't always fit the bill. Feel free to contact me again for followup. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for guidance S. Rich. I will say that the reference 241 was not decided in 2016 which is why I responded back. The information from reference 241 was for a petition for rehearing en banc BUT not argued or decided in March 2016. The reference I used was an independent 3rd party law site that lists the court case being argued and then a decision. The actual case was argued and then a decision rendered en banc AFTER the March 2016 reference 241. This is why I added the edit. It is not a repeat of a prior edit but an actual decision en banc versus a petition for rehearing en banc for the case to be heard at some date in the future. In addition, reference 241 lists a rehearing in March 2016 and therein is the ending of what occurred for that reference. Afterwards, the case was argued May 11 2016 and decided Feb 21 2017. This information was not referenced at all in reference 241. If one visits the link to the new reference I left, one would see the difference between reference 241 and my referenced link found at justia.com I hope that clarifies why this would not be the same information at all but an update to a prior listed petition to be heard (but not argued or decided). A new edit would indicate that the case was argued (May 11 2016) and then a decision (10-4 rendered) Feb 21 2017 by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I would hope that this would meet the definition of a proper edit in the sense that it is a constructive piece of information not included at all but a separate new piece of information in regards to an actual case (ie. not petition) so as to be useful to a further discussion. There is a brief summary on the new site referenced providing a short insight into the outcome of the case heard. Please advise if a new edit would be acceptable including using the link for the reference. Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Rch000 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Rch000[reply]

New article review

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billybon:  Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsdale

Srich, if the Christian college bit is incorrect, you will need to change the article text itself. The lead just summarized what's said in the article. If the article stuff is not well-sourced, by all means remove it. If it is well-sourced, it's not clear why the lead shouldn't reflect it. My only concern would be to follow the guideline you cited and reflect the article content. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFA Elcor, Minnesota

Thanks for you edits! With regard to the URL for the Gilbert Herald, regrettably to this day, the Gilbert Herald has no online presence. It is a print newspaper only. Regards DrGregMN (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrGregMN: in which case I think the spaced endash, rather than hyphen, is the best WP editing solution. See: MOS:HYPHEN & MOS:DASH. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Dorm Room Fund page

Hi! I'm a new contributor on Wikipedia, and I wrote an article recently. It’s on an organization named Dorm Room Fund. Would love to get your thoughts on whether it satisfies the notability guidelines, whether we should merge it with the First Round Capital page, or whether it should be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorm_Room_Fund

Best, Massetto1 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Massetto1: I think I'd prefer that you study the guidelines and policies at this stage, rather than give specific suggestions on issues. (I'm reflecting back on how I learned about WP editing.) Also, there are various WP:ESSAYs (look at the bottom of the page) that give informal guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

The question ought to be not the neutrality of a given *edit* (in isolation, mine wasn't, I agree), but the neutrality of the *article* as a whole. The article failed to mention socialist famines at all, prior to my edits. That's not neutral, as you are leaving out an event that has occurred under multiple socialist regimes.

That said, there could well be a more neutral way to describe socialist famines, and I'm certainly open to discussion.Adoring nanny (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism has been the scourge of many in recent decades, but famine has preceded Socialism. I am saying that our POV re Socialism must remain neutral when editing WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that the article should not mention socialist famines at all?[[1]]Adoring nanny (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Your very insistence on the term "socialist famines" makes it clear that you are assuming an unproven causation, alias begging the question, which violates our NPOV policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. There was a hacking attempt on my computer, via an expired firewall. The attempt was blocked and the firewall was updated. To add more protection I added a VPN program from my anti-virus provider, AVG Internet Security. As I understand the VPN protocol, it shows an IP address in San Francisco. But I really am Srich32977. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to disable your use of the VPN in order to edit. Alternatively, you may qualify under WP:IPBE. Yamla (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmm... Are you really blocked? you seem to not be blocked at all. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm really, really am blocked from editing articles when the virtual private network is activated. (I can edit my own user pages) So I'll try to qualify under IPBE. And, for now, I'll edit using my mobile device or turn off the VPN. – S. Rich (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug E. Clay

Could you explain why I am getting rejected they claim that the person is not notable enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Douglas_Clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csulaguy (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Csulaguy: Other than being the new head, there's not much info about him. Especially from WP:SECONDARY sources. Perhaps he will become notable in the WP sense later on in his term. – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repealing the Second Amendment

Greetings, S. Rich. About Gun law in the United States, we can continue the discussion on that article's talk page, and in fact I posted a reply there a few minutes ago. But, sort of "off topic", in the sense that it's not about a Wikipedia article, you might enjoy reading this column by Chicago Tribune writer Steve Chapman. His opinion, or advice, is that everybody should stop worrying about repealing the Second Amendment, because (1) gun control laws can be made much stricter, if that's your goal, without repealing it, and (2) repealing it will not be politically achievable in the foreseeable future, and (3) therefore it's an energy-wasting distraction. You may well not agree, but his arguments are pretty interesting, in my view. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buffoonery comment

Thanks for pointing that out, it wasn't a very civil on my part. That particular user's edit warring and obvious bias are frustrating is all. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'ts why I don't like tools

Under Wikipedia:WikiGnome it mentions "... and repairing broken links." Tools permit edits with the lowest gains, not necessarily the edits that fix things. Which is why I don't like tools.

(I beg your pardon for the stink, but I've been coming across bad tool edits for years. Viz. And in the cited case, the 250K editor blamed me for not fixing their unreviewed edit. Laziness, yes?) Shenme (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?

Thanks for your message. Sorry, but I haven't presented any original research on Wikipedia. I simply stated well known historical facts (eg. Jefferson was a politician) along with his own words. I've added more academic references. There's an endless supply.

  1. ^ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977&oldid=839769273"