User talk:ActivelyDisinterested
Index
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5. |
Temporary account IP viewer granted
[edit]
Hello, ActivelyDisinterested. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
- You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
- Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
- When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
- Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
- Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Friendly reminder?
[edit]I have enjoyed and found helpful your comments in the several discussions, thanks. I would like to remind u of this:
- @ActivelyDisinterested and Locke Cole: Since the consensus is to revert I will do so, I will then reference all material that "needs" RS's and finally edit the article to define FDs per the several RS's. This will likely take many hours over several days and I will use appropriate templates to flag whether the article is under construction or in use. I would appreciate it if editors would abide by the suggestions of the templates and thereby making the task more difficult thru unnecessary edit conflicts. Tom94022 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, BURDEN must be met but there is no deadline. I suggest using the {{in use}} template to warn editors, it's helpful to stop edit conflicts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
The consensus, counting u and not me, was 4 for Revert and 0 for Retitle, I did find RSs for all but 1 CN. Now we are discussing it again with more editors involved. I don't oppose Retitle [now option 1] but if that means a revert to the July 13 version there must be a policy that requires the editor reverting to move the material to the appropriate article. I am concerned that if the consensus is other than 3 or 5 an editor will simply delete the material on high-capacity FDs in spite of its being relevant and verified. Suggestion as how to make that clear? Tom94022 (talk) Tom94022 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- The RFC is on whether it's relevant, I would say #3 is the right answer (I just posted to the RFC). If the decision is to not include that content in the floppy disk article, then it can always be included elsewhere. The content could be moved to a news article and add a paragraph to the Floppy disk article about attempted successors to the floppy disk that point to that article. It's not necessary to include everything on every page, if it's verifiable and relevant the issue is finding where it should be included. If the community disagrees with it being included in a certain article, the issue becomes finding a different place to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Battle of Ocracoke
[edit]Not sure if this will help you with your research, but I thought I would point this out to you Blackbeard#Last battle. It has several sources. I may do more research myself in the future if I can get around to it. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Victor Vescovo Personal Information
[edit]How did the source not verify the changes? I have checked it up against court documents. I'm very confused here. TimothyImholt (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Court documents can't be used, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Using only the Legal.ng source doesn't verify what you added, see my reply[1] to your comments on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Question
[edit]Hi ActivelyDisinterested,
I'm preparing to open an RfC regarding the widespread use of a little-known review aggregator in music articles, and I wanted to ask your advice on where the discussion best belongs. The aggregator in question, AnyDecentMusic?[2], is obscure (its article was deleted for failing notability) and has been cited in maybe two WP:RS articles ever[3][4]. I'm unsure whether this RfC belongs on WP:RSN or the WikiProject Albums talk page. You participated in the book aggregator consensus at MOS:NOVELS where, similarly, it was a matter of due weight rather than reliability in the traditional RSN sense since an aggregator isn't reporting facts, but publishing its own subjective synthesis of subjective reviews. Some users in that discussion were adamant that RSN was the only appropriate avenue. I wanted to pre-empt such concerns. Thanks in advance for your help. Οἶδα (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest you first start a normal discussion, rather than a formal RFC, on WikiProject Albums. Musical sources are an odd bunch, and expertise in the area can be very important. Also WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Aggregates is a project level concensus. The last discussion there appears to be WT:WikiProject Albums/Archive 78#AnyDecentMusic? reliability, I would suggest reading that first just so you don't repeat questions that have already been answered. If after discussion you still believe that a RFC is necessary then either RSN or Project Albums would be an appropriate venue, I would just suggest notifying the other. So if the RFC is at the project then notify RSN, and vice versa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've read through all the previous discussions I could find, and have linked to and analyzed them in the RfC rationale I drafted over the last few days. I had participated in the last discussion, the one to which you linked, where the general takeaway was that editors shouldn't be removing the aggregator without consensus on its reliability because notability (the reason AnyDecentMusic? was deleted) is different from reliability. I myself voted to not restrict its usage given the lack of consensus. The project-level consensus was in 2016 in the form of an RfC (Template_talk:Music_ratings/Archive_2#Add_AnyDecentMusic?_to_aggregate_reviewers_option?) which added the aggregator to the {{Music ratings}} template. One of my main arguments is pushing back against the 2016 template-level consensus as having inadequately investigated the source's "reliability". And considering the last normal discussion, which originated from an editing dispute, already resulted in users recognizing the need for a wider reliability discussion, I wasn't planning on opening another normal discussion. Much of my rationale is similar to the points previously raised at MOS:NOVELS. Meaning the discussion is nuanced and time-consuming, which is why I believe an RfC is the appropriate avenue. But I'm unsure between RSN and WikiProject Albums. Does it make any difference? I'm inclined to avoid RSN (but still advertise it there) because the issue pertains more to WP:WEIGHT rather than "reliability" in the traditional RSN sense. Cheers! Οἶδα (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're right that if the RFC is about more than just straight reliability then WikiProject Albums is the more appropriate forum. Do notify RSN, I'll be interested to see what comes of the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've read through all the previous discussions I could find, and have linked to and analyzed them in the RfC rationale I drafted over the last few days. I had participated in the last discussion, the one to which you linked, where the general takeaway was that editors shouldn't be removing the aggregator without consensus on its reliability because notability (the reason AnyDecentMusic? was deleted) is different from reliability. I myself voted to not restrict its usage given the lack of consensus. The project-level consensus was in 2016 in the form of an RfC (Template_talk:Music_ratings/Archive_2#Add_AnyDecentMusic?_to_aggregate_reviewers_option?) which added the aggregator to the {{Music ratings}} template. One of my main arguments is pushing back against the 2016 template-level consensus as having inadequately investigated the source's "reliability". And considering the last normal discussion, which originated from an editing dispute, already resulted in users recognizing the need for a wider reliability discussion, I wasn't planning on opening another normal discussion. Much of my rationale is similar to the points previously raised at MOS:NOVELS. Meaning the discussion is nuanced and time-consuming, which is why I believe an RfC is the appropriate avenue. But I'm unsure between RSN and WikiProject Albums. Does it make any difference? I'm inclined to avoid RSN (but still advertise it there) because the issue pertains more to WP:WEIGHT rather than "reliability" in the traditional RSN sense. Cheers! Οἶδα (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)