User talk:Wburrow

Archives

Archive 1

Hey Wborrow - I have recently made edits to a page that you reverted back, but I am actually an in-law of the person and have been requested to make changes. Pbwolfe15 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbwolfe15 - Addition of that information must be supported by citing a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. I have no doubt it's accurate, but the guidelines for biographies of living people are very strict. Also, family information is probably better suited to the Biography section of the article rather than the lead. Wburrow (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wburrow that is a good point! I will move some of the family stuff down to the biography section. I am working with Eric and we are writing out exactly what we would like his page to say seeing as it hasn't been updated in a while. I will look over the policy guidelines and make sure the rest of our edits adhere to them. Our first edit was really just to see if this is something we can due on our own or must hire someone to do. Pbwolfe15 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help!! Pbwolfe15 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wburrow Pbwolfe15 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wburrow How did you add citation needed? We may do that for the rest of edits we make until we can get citations that way we don't get our account locked. Pbwolfe15 (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this: {{cn|date=June 2024}} - just copy and paste it after the sentence (and make sure to update the date to the correct month if needed). Wburrow (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wburrow! Pbwolfe15 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to be making for edits this week. Just so you know cause I don't want to get banned. Pbwolfe15 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I added a canned welcome message to your page that has information and links that may be helpful in making sure you don't inadvertently violate Wikipedia policy. Wburrow (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you very much for your careful approach to biographies of living people. Restoring only the sourced content after multiple paragraphs were removed is something I'd love to see more often on Wikipedia; the most common response is a full rollback that restores unverifiable material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my edit without checking for sources. https://www.gbnews.com/sport/olympics/iga-swiatek-insincere-fake-olympics-world-no-1 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13695805/Danielle-Collins-slams-fake-Iga-Swiatek-heated-row-end-Olympics-match-Pole-blasted-ball.html https://sportowefakty.wp.pl/igrzyska-olimpijskie/1137257/iga-swiatek-odpowiada-na-zarzuty-rywalki-zdecydowane-slowa https://sportowefakty.wp.pl/tenis/1137341/ujawniono-co-collins-zaczela-krzyczec-do-swiatek https://przegladsportowy.onet.pl/igrzyska-olimpijskie/paryz-2024/danielle-collins-oskarza-iga-swiatek-jest-falszywa-burza-w-paryzu/dy4l5bn 178.43.103.191 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I replied on your talk page. We can continue the conversation there if needed. Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Danny Wells was still alive today, he would have been 83 years old.2601:640:4080:2780:9DC1:104C:7F5D:303C (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting MarksmanRifle for the edit-warring. While you were doing that, I reported the user as a possible sockpuppet because the user's overall conduct strikes me as exceedingly similar to two other users who were blocked as sockpuppets earlier this summer. If you have any interest, you can find it here (the prior two are in the SPI archive linked on that page—AutisticAndrew and SShreddies). 1995hoo (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that their behavior is strikingly similar and I'm very interested to see how the investigation turns out. Wburrow (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added an entry to a topic I made on another user's chat page (topic titled "August 2024") stating quote "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Komodo Edit." end quote. I have never made an edit to the komodo edit page. As such, I have reverted your addition to my topic on that chat page. I believe you intended to add the note to the user's chat page, and just added it to the topic i created (which i have since changed the name of), so I have created a new topic and put your message within it to avoid further confusion. If the message was aimed at me, please provide further details on my chat page. Ewan-65 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ewan-65, User Talk sections titled with the month and year like "August 2024" are typically used by anti-vandalism tools like Twinkle or Ultraviolet to group messages/warnings to that user for ease of navigation. This is done automatically, so my warning to the IP user was put in that section by default. It was not in reply to the message you posted to the user. Sorry for any confusion. Wburrow (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I've already changed the title of my topic to make it clearer, and I moved the message into a new topic. Ewan-65 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that IP directed personal attacks at you. It is my personal agenda to see if victims pf personal attacks are okay. Are you fine? Also I noticed that your talk page is getting long. You can archive your talk page using Template:Archive. Felicia (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you checking in. I'm just fine - I see those kinds of comments as someone who is very hurt finding a way to vent, and they don't bother me in the slightest. And thanks for the tip about archiving my talk page. I've been meaning to look into how to do that, so the link is very helpful. Wburrow (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wburrow. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm a pretty new Wikipedian with a strong dislike for vandalism. I'm not auto-confirmed yet, so I haven't been able to use any automated/semi-automated tools like Twinkle to fight it. You recently used Twinkle to add a second warning to the talk page of 184.185.74.212 and when I looked at the page, it seems like the IP address has received many warnings that may be getting "reset" every month since it seems like Twinkle categorizes warnings by month. Do you think it's appropriate for you to report the user to admins or is it Wikipedia policy to have a 5-time/month warn limit before reporting the user? I'm mainly asking you because:

1. You seem to be more experienced than me

2. While I have been reverting vandalism, I haven't yet reported anyone

3. You encountered and warned the same user I did

4. I can't edit the page to report the user because (as previously stated) I am not auto-confirmed. TryAgainSooner (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TryAgainSooner - I've only been doing anti-vandalism stuff for the last couple months, but I appreciate you reaching out and will try to answer as best I can. The trouble with IPs is that they could in theory be used by different people, so we don't know that the person who got warned in April (or even yesterday) is the same person using the IP now. Because we have to assume good faith, it's best to start with a fresh set of warnings if it's been a month or more since the last set. If it's been less than a month, there is more of a judgement call involved when deciding what level is right. I feel like I reduce the severity of the warning I would otherwise give by about 1 level per week since the last warning, but it's really more art than science, and I know I haven't always gotten it exactly right. The AV tool you're using also makes a difference. Of the ones I've tried, only Twinkle shows you the full User Talk page before you issue the warning. Ultraviolet and Huggle only show you the level of their last warning during the current month on a 0-4 scale with no more detail, which can result in a reset for each new month.

As for when to report, I'll only report when they vandalize after a level 4 warning issued in the last day or 2 - anything else gets another warning from me (unless the vandalism is particularly bad or there is some other factor like a recently expired block.) Wburrow (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT do this. GiantSnowman 18:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman - Can you please explain why? WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are both pretty clear that linking to a redirect is preferable to using a piped link to avoid the redirect, and none of the exceptions they list are applicable here. I looked through the WP:FOOTY MOS and couldn't find anything that suggested there should be exception to following the WP-wide guidelines. Wburrow (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because some clubs have easy redirects and some don't. We apply NOPIPE to positions, but not clubs. Review literally EVERY footballer article. GiantSnowman 19:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman - Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this, but I wanted to follow up because I still don't fully understand your objection. I don't see why it should matter that some clubs have easy redirects while others don't. Surely this is true of just about any set of articles, like classical music composers? Just because we can't avoid using a pipe for [[Josef Strauss|Strauss]] doesn't mean we shouldn't apply NOPIPE to [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]. Likewise, I don't see why the fact the we have to pipe [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] means we wouldn't use NOPIPE with [[Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United]].

I also don't find the argument that because every page follows a certain practice, we should continue to follow the practice to be very compelling (assuming of course that the practice is in fact contrary to the MOS or other guidelines). We've seen efforts like Dicklyon's quest to get article titles to conform to MOS:CAPS or Stevie fae Scotland's persuit to get the reports in football boxes to conform to WP:CITE. In both of these cases pretty much every relevant article (at least that I've seen) was not in compliance before the efforts began. Why would we not want to do the same with NOPIPE, even if it's only a few articles at a time?

All that being said, I have great respect for your work on the project (and I'm still fairly new to editing beyond updating match results and other statistics), so I trust your judgement that de-piping club names would not be a net benefit to the project, but I'd still like to understand why. I can see that the reasons for NOPIPE given at MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN that relate to linking to a redirect with possibilities aren't especially applicable to club names, but some of the listed reasons (like making the wikitext easier to read) do apply. The only argument against NOPIPE that comes to my mind is that we might want to protect links against the redirect being changed (e.g. by vandalism or maybe some scenario where the primary topic of the redirect is no longer the football club and then gets changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page). But that concern is present for any link to a redirect, so I'd like to think (perhaps naively) that it would have already been considered before the NOPIPE guidelines were written. Are there other reasons that football clubs (as opposed to positions) should be exempt from NOPIPE that I'm missing? Wburrow (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of MOS:NOPIPE is to avoid changing links if/when an article changes - that does not apply to football clubs. As I said, this is not a guideline which has ever applied to football clubs. GiantSnowman 20:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman - I can see that link stability is a major reason for NOPIPE (and I agree that it's not applicable to football clubs), but WP:NOTBROKEN (which is referenced by MOS:NOPIPE) and WP:NOPIPE both state that making the wikitext easier to read is a benefit of NOPIPE (and that is applicable to football clubs). So I guess my question is this: if there is some (small) benefit from applying NOPIPE, what is the overriding negative reason not to apply it? What's the harm? Or conversely, what's the benefit of using a piped link for football clubs? (And, yes, I understand it hasn't been done in the past, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason, in and of itself, to not do something in the future if there is in fact a benefit to it.)

Please understand that I'm not pressing this point to be combative or difficult - I genuinely want to understand why applying NOPIPE to football clubs is not beneficial so that I can be a better editor and avoid similar issues in the future. I didn't set out on a mission to de-pipe football club links or anything like that. I happened across an article while patrolling recent changes and noticed what looked like some links that didn't meet MOS standards, so I fixed them (as I've done for several other articles on unrelated topics in the past). Since the article was about a footballer and most of my non-RCP editing is on football articles, I went a little deeper and found a few more articles where I saw similar issues, until these changes came to your attention. Sorry if that's a bit of a digression, but my point is this: what's to stop other well-intentioned editors who see football club links that would qualify for NOPIPE from correcting what are surface level MOS violations? There's nothing in any of the relevant guidelines to indicate that NOPIPE should not be applied to football clubs. If I understood why following the MOS is not beneficial in this scenario, maybe I could suggest changes to the MOS to prevent this from happening in the future. Wburrow (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]