Jump to content

User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80

Some baklava for you!

From me to you, for your contribution Xclusive123 (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #511

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • WDQS outage on 06 March: users may have unexpectedly had requests blocked. Incident report here.
  • Development
    • Getting ready for Data Reuse Days
    • Mismatch Finder: Discussing the next batches of potential mismatches with MusicBrainz data and some remaining Freebase data
    • Lexicographical data: Continuing work on the basic version of the new Special:NewLexeme page, focusing on putting in the base data about the new Lexeme
    • REST API: Continuing coding on the basic version of the GET Item endpoint

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2022-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • In the Wikipedia Android app it is now possible to change the toolbar at the bottom so the tools you use more often are easier to click on. The app now also has a focused reading mode. [1][2]

Problems

  • There was a problem with the collection of some page-view data from June 2021 to January 2022 on all wikis. This means the statistics are incomplete. To help calculate which projects and regions were most affected, relevant datasets are being retained for 30 extra days. You can read more on Meta-wiki.
  • There was a problem with the databases on March 10. All wikis were unreachable for logged-in users for 12 minutes. Logged-out users could read pages but could not edit or access uncached content then. [3]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
  • When using uselang=qqx to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history". [4]
  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision right could access this special page. [5]
  • On the Special:Undelete pages for diffs and revisions, there will be a link back to the main Undelete page with the list of revisions. [6]

Future changes

Events

  • The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place as a hybrid event on 20-22 May 2022. The Hackathon will be held online and there are grants available to support local in-person meetups around the world. Grants can be requested until 20 March.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot ‱ Contribute ‱ Translate ‱ Get help ‱ Give feedback ‱ Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on UFC 273 title fights and is Chimaev title contender material?

Very excited for the UFC 273 so interested to hear your thoughts. I think Yan is going to dominate with ease and as an all-around excellent fighter, I can see only a very strong wrestler able to take him off his striking position and outplay him on the ground, thinking Merab is the only one with a clear shot on this in the future (as long as he drops unnecessarily showing off his newfound boxing skills that nearly ended with a TKO with Moraes). On Volkanowski I'd say his insane level of speed, reach, and wrestling will crack Zombie's toughness in the long run, predicting a final round TKO or submission on this one. nearlyevil665 12:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

nearlyevil665 You predictions are same as mine. Cassiopeia talk 01:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fight Club Akhmat

Hi, have you managed to have time to look at this gym article yet to see if its ok?

-Imcdc (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Imcdc, Hi, sorry for the late reply. I have reviewed the article and it passed the notability guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 02:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Free Guy Edit

Hi. It seems you sent me a message on a "Talk Page". I'm very new to this. Actually, I was just watching the movie Free Guy (2021) and while listening it sounded very familiar. After trying to place the sound I found the music that matched and it's Pixar's "Inside Out" (2015). I can add in the time stamp of the movie (as viewable on Disney Plus), but I don't really know how to do that on Wikipedia.

I think I just mistook one score for another. However I can timestamp those instances of "Paperman" that the page already mentions. 46:27 and 1:14:46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AConcernedMovieWatcher (talk ‱ contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
AConcernedMovieWatcher, Good day and thank you for your message above. This was your edit. Info added/changed needs to be supported by independent, reliable source such as from the newspaper for verification. If there is already a source in the article could support the claim then pls provide the link/URL (source info). Unfortunately I or you can not be the source as we are just anonymous editor which means we are not a reliable source. Cassiopeia talk 06:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What

Hey mate, what are you saying, I didn't do anything wrong, I just add his bowling style and role in team. What wrong in it, can you explain?? Ripomobo11 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ripomobo11 Good day. There are many messages on your talk page and some of them which including mine that you (1) need to provide independent, reliable source, such as from the newspaper for verification of your claim. If the existing source could be found in the article to support the claim, then pls indicate in the edit summary and provide the URL of the source which you can be found in the ref section. (2) You can add back the info if you can find the source as indicated above by using the horizontal format of Template:Cite web if the source is from the web. Cassiopeia talk 07:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
For your kind information, adding player role such as batting or bowling is not vandalism and it doesn't need any reference Ripomobo11 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ripomobo11 I am one of the Counter vandalism trainer in Wikipedia and the warning messages on your talk page which I added were about "unsourced". Pls note again the info on my previous message above and the person who changed or added the info need to provide the source to support the claim - see WP:PROVEIT and WP:BURDEN. Adding unsourced content is not vandalism act; however, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continuing adding unsourced content after many warnings given. Cassiopeia talk 07:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a note ...

@Cassiopeia, a note that the {{ping|<IP>}} structure you used in the conversation above to call the IP's attention to your comments does not work. Only registered Wiki accounts will receive a {{ping}} (or {{reply to}}, {{re}}, {{mention}} and the other variants of that template). General Ization Talk 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

General Ization Good day and thank you for the info. I did know about the above and I have talked back on their talk page. Thank you for addressing the issues on my behalf. Appreciate it. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank u

I am not an editor now because I am brainless please block my channel. Ripomobo11 (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #512

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • New requests for permissions/Bot:
      • PodcastBot. Task/s: Upload new podcast episodes, extract: title, part of the series, has quality (explicit episode), full work available at (mp3), production code, apple podcast episode id, spotify episode ID. Regex extraction: talk show guest, recording date (from description)
      • AradglBot. Task/s: Create between 100,000 and 200,000 new lexemes in Aragonese language Q8765
    • Closed request for permissions/Bot: EnvlhBot 3 (approved). Task/s: add dictionaries IDs to French lexemes
  • Tool of the week
    • Linked People project let's you explore the family trees of all known people at Wikipedia/Wikidata.
    • Gene of the Day (gene-wordle) uses Wikidata for gene names and crafting an answer list by number of sitelinks.
  • Development
    • Lexicographical data: We're continuing with the work on the new Special:NewLexeme page. We worked on saving a valid new Lexeme with the new page. We are now focusing on the suggesters for language and lexical category so editors can select the right Item for them.
    • Data Reuse Days: We ran sessions on how to use Wikidata's data programmatically and the best practices around it. Slides and videos are available already (see above).
    • REST API: Continuing coding on the basic version of the GET Item endpoint. We have the very initial version of the get item endpoint ready and are now adding more parameters to it.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2022-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

New code release schedule for this week

  • There will be four MediaWiki releases this week, instead of just one. This is an experiment which should lead to fewer problems and to faster feature updates. The releases will be on all wikis, at different times, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. You can read more about this project.

Recent changes

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot ‱ Contribute ‱ Translate ‱ Get help ‱ Give feedback ‱ Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from AndrewW5 on User talk:Jimfbleak (09:08, 14 March 2022)

Hi there

There's been a lot of back and forth regarding my username. Please can you confirm that my username is now acceptable and how long before my Leadhills Golf Club page will be published?

Thanks

Andrew --AndrewW5 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

AndrewW5 Good day, Your current user name "AndrewW5" should be acceptable. As for your Draft:Leadhills Golf Club, the article is not notable and will not be accepted as per Wikipedia notablity guidelines as both of the sources you provided are not independent nor reliable. For a page to be acceptable in Wikipedia main space (pass the notability requirements) - The subject needs to have significant coverage, with independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned. I have sent you a welcome page, kindly read the links provided to familiar wiht some of the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. Let me know if anything else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there
I've removed the articles as per your message. Please can you advise me when the page will go live?
Thanks
Andrew AndrewW5 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
AndrewW5 Frist of all, you need to add an additional colon " : " from the previous message thread for one space indentation to the right prior starting writing your message as this is the communication protocol in Wikipedia talk page. (I have added them for you on your previous message). Secondly you need to read my initial message to you again to understand the Wikipedia notability guidelines for an article to be accepted in Wikipedia main space. Pls click on the blue highlighted texts so you may understand the info provided in details. (Note: independent, reliable sources such as source from the major newspapers). The draft article you have written fails the notability guidelines and will not be accepted and there for it will not be go live. Pls see Help:Your first article on how to create an article for new editors. To create an article for new editors is actually a hard task, you might want to start by copy editing article - "correcting spelling and improving grammar, sentence structure, style and flow to make it clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent; and make it say what it means and mean what it says." - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and Category:All articles needing copy edit. Let me know what else I could help. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 10:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there
There are no sources which talk about the club at length. I find it hard to accept that there isn't sufficient detail on the draft for it to go live, when there are other live pages with less information on it.
Andrew AndrewW5 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
AndrewW5 Again, pls add additional colon prior starting your message. (I have added for you again). If there are no sources talk about the subject, then it means the subject (the article) fails the Wikipedia notability guidelines and it would be warrant to be existed in Wikipedia main space. The draft article will be remain in the draft page for 6 month prior it will deleted or you can request to be deleted by adding {{Db-g7}} - request to be deleted by creator. The length of the article is not the issues here but the info of the article needs to be supported by independent, reliable sources (IRS) for verification. In short if no or not enough IRS talk about the subject then it means the subject is not notable. (btw we dont say "go live" but we say "publish" in Wikipedia). Let me know what else I could help. Stay safe and best (remember to add additional colon next time). Cassiopeia talk 10:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I have added a colon a the beginning of my message this time - still learning the ropes. I have updated the Leadhills Golf Club page with a few sources which are specifically about the subject. Please can you let me know if this is acceptable and will help the page get published? AndrewW5 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
AndrewW5 Good day. Learning how to edit Wikipedia and understanding the guidelines do take some time. Thank you for adding the additional colon. None sources were added in the article are considered independent, reliable sources for such the subject is not notable to be a stand alone page in Wikpedia. You need to understand in details about the notability guidelines as I have mentioned to you before (click on the hightlighted blue texts and read the info) "- The subject needs to have significant coverage, with independent, reliable sources for verification where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned" to pass the notability guidelines so you wont keep on looking for sources which might not be acceptable as per the above info. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cassiopeia talk 01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Improper deletion of factual correction to 90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente page

I don't know how to link a source to the references section of wiki pages, however, here is a link which gives the clinical and official definition of pedophilia, which the show in question does not feature in any form: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327034/ That definition is from the offical US gov medical publications web page. Please link it as a reference. That said, even the linked word "pedophillic" in the article, if highlighted, immediately notes that pedophillic refers to a sexual preference for prepubescent children, so the correction I made is both accurate and necessary for the accuracy of the page and the prevention of spreading disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB and 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB: I saw you reference. However, the article is a drama television series and that is what the show depicted and not about reality. Pls do not add back the info. Cassiopeia talk 01:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What? Begging your pardon, but what does the article being about a television drama have to do with placing a false description and disinformation in an article about the show? Did the shows creators specifically ask that Wikipedia describe the show as pedophilic, or is that just a word you or another moderator like having as a descriptor of the show? It's factually inaccurate. It is false in an easily verifiable and provable way. The show isn't about a "pedophillic" relationship, because what it depicts is NOT what pedophilia means, and the addition of the word "pedophllic" is a real world word, and is being applied as a real descriptor of the drama show, and that use is false, which both the linked definition for "pedophillic" in the article, and the official government medical encyclopedia web page I provided you, point out. Is there a reason why you don't want disinformation being presented on your page corrected? 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Cassiopeia, The http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/90-60-90,_diario_secreto_de_una_adolescente as it currently exists, as you have edited it to remain, is DISINFORMATION. The "pedophillic" descriptor it gives is FALSE, and it is journalistic integrity to correct such a blatant falsehood, no matter if the falsehood is socially popular. Even the linked "pedophillic" term, when clicked, specifically notes: "Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.", and thus is its own reference for why it DOES NOT apply to an article about a show centered on an age disparate relationship where the younger partner is a postpubertal, consenting age minor teen. Give me instructions on how to add references, and I will do so, but it is irresponsible for you to have removed a categorically true and easily verified factual correction to a very serious false claim made on a wikepedia page. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB and 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB: First of all you cant edit this in the article. Secondly, if you think the lead section indicate using the word pedophilic is incorrectly descript the summary of the TV series, then pls provide an independent, reliable source (such as from the newspaper - any languages is allowed) for the TV series description. Cassiopeia talk 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I DID provide an independent, reliable source, which you said ( about two replies up ) you had seen. The reliable source is the US GOVERNMENT's OFFICIAL medical publications online encyclopedia!! Even the wikipedia page link for http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pedophilic , which you JUST relinked to me again, literall and correctly states exactly why that word doesn't apply to that show!! Because that accurate, factual, clinical definition "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children" does not and CANNOT factually apply to a show, however seedy, about an older man dating a postpubertal 16 year old, especially in a state or country ( as is the case in the country the show is filmed in ) where 16 is above the age of consent. ALSO, it is outrageous that you messaged me accusing me of "vandalism" of the page, when I only edited the page twice, in total, and when the second and last edit I made to it was AFTER I provided you with a reliable, official, HIGHLY reliable source ( www.pubmed.gov , literally the United States federal government National Library of Medicine website!! ), which you claimed the absence of was your only reason for removing my accurate revisions. You are literally allowing disinformation to stand on that show's page, and also you are using moderator status to bully a user ( me ) for posting a VALID correction. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) IP, please turn down the volume. See Assume good faith and Civility. Cassiopeia is known for being very patient, but there is no reason why they should need to tolerate abuse, which seems to be where this is headed. General Ization Talk 05:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
"Begging" your pardon, General Ization, but it is very difficult to see full good faith when a user is being accused of page "vandalism" for a total of two corrective edits (the initial edit, and one follow up after having provided the asked for independent and highly official secondary source to the moderator ), both of which ( the edits ) were/are entirely factual, and also easily verifiable. Even a review of the above messages, and a clicking/following of the links provided [ including the very wikepedia link provided by Cassiopeia ], provides a rather plain explanation of why that is. Accusations of "vandalism" and threats of banning over entirely legitimate, sourceable and fully factual revisions, amounts to little better than bullying via moderator authority. There is no valid reason that I, as a user acting in good faith, should be subjected to punitive threats/measures for making a fully accurate and fully verifiable ( easily verified through any number of reliable sources, including Wikipedia pages on the related psychiatric and clinical topics )correction to disinformation presented in a a Wikipedia article. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We depend on reliable sources for the information we present here. This source, cited in the article, includes the following paragraph (in Spanish): Es lo que mĂĄs daño hace a la profesiĂłn, en la serie "90-60-90,.." podĂ­amos ver desde el primer episodio como el fotĂłgrafo interpretado por el actor Jesus Olmedo mantenĂ­a relaciones sexuales con la modelo interpretada por la actriz Esmeralda Moya, cuando incluso la edad ficticia de ambos era de 42 y 16 años respectivamente. Sexo, pedofilia,... y desde el primer episodio!, esa es la imagen que se proyecta del sector y, por ende, la que el pĂșblico tiene de nuestra profesiĂłn, sin comentarios.... Note the term pedofilia. We do not second-guess our sources, especially as they relate public perception in a culture that doesn't necessarily know or care about the clinical definition of pedophilia according to a United States health agency. General Ization Talk 05:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The word has the same definition in the International Psychological body that is the International equivalent of the American Psych. Association. The factual meaning of the word is the same in Europe, and globally, as in America. What you are saying is that Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia depended on for factual accuracy, and it's mods ( like yourself ) are actively allowing substitution of cultural/popular misconceptions about phenomena and serious terms, to be substituted in place of factual, definitive scientific definitions, which they flatly contradict. Just because someone who wrote a foreign language synopsis that uses a term incorrectly ( and thus spreads disinformation ), does not mean that the misinformation/disinformation should go perpetually uncorrected. The "source" you site is just a random write up on the article by a Spanish language entertainment magazine: entertainment magazines, both in the USA and abroad, FREQUENTLY give inaccurate or false information, which is understandable as they are created by entertainment writers, not by medical doctors, psychiatrists, scientists, other clinicians, nor even professional news journalists. That is not an excuse for an information site like Wikipedia, which purportedly does it's best to provide factual information, to not only spread the misinformation and disinformation reported in an entertainment magazine article, but to also delete and essentially prohibit factual corrections which use the PROPER definition of a term ( and the proper definition of the term in question is the same in Spanish official definitions of the word as in English, French, German, Italian etc., the proper and clinical definition of the word is what it is, and misapplication of it is misapplication, and when the misapplication is stated as "official", it is misinformation at best, and disinformation when deliberate. To say that you "don't second guess" your sources, when the source is a foreign language entertainment magazine, but then ferociously second guess and flatly ignore proper, official government medical sources is, at the very least, outrageous bias. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you continue to act as if you think it is, and to accuse other editors of various bad acts and misdeeds, you will very likely find yourself blocked from editing and the issue will very likely remain uncorrected, rather than being resolved through collaboration. The ball is now in your court. General Ization Talk 06:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
If you would like to propose what you think would be a more accurate word to describe the sexual relationship between Bruno and Mel based on their relative ages and her having reached the age of puberty, that would be a constructive conversation, unlike your current approach to this dispute. General Ization Talk 06:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose age-disparate or age-discrepant. One could even add "socially taboo". But to use a word that flatly means something fundamentally different than what the show depicts ( esp. considering it takes place in a country where the younger partner is above the age of consent, which is 16 in most US states, and is slightly younger in Spain ) is, at best, misinformation. To continue using it when made aware of the error and provided with official, definitive medical and government descriptions of why the use is erroneous is disinformation. If you and the other Wikipedia moderators are indeed acting in good faith, I should not have to repeatedly spell out why allowing factual corrections and providing legitimate factual information ( instead of hyperbolic and highly erroneous colloquialisms ) is the appropriate thing to do. That your online encyclopedia, which prides itself on being "factual", should insist on legitimate, official definitions with descriptors over misinformed and erroneous colloquialisms should not be a disputed matter in the first place. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
What triggered that reaction was not that you were attempting to correct what you saw as an incorrect use of a term, but the way you went about it: repeatedly inserting disclamatory language into an article rather than starting a conversation (on the article's Talk page) and waiting for other editors to discuss the topic with you. We operate on consensus here, and attempts by an editor to ram through their changes, no matter how determined they are that they are right, will generally be met with a seemingly unpleasant response. Since you have brought up the matter on the article's Talk page, I suggest you wait now until other editors (perhaps Cassiopeia will be among them, and perhaps I will as well, but not tonight because it is very late here) have a chance to think about it and respond. In the meantime, you must not repeat the edit that has been reverted, because if you do, you will likely be blocked for disruptive editing. General Ization Talk 06:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
A single second revision, after providing the source ( a much more official, valid and internationally accepted source than the entertainment magazine article you noted as the article's main source, I might add ) requested, is hardly "ramming", except by the least generous assessment. That the use of the term was incorrect is beyond the realm of legitimate debate, as even the link of the linked term used gives a description which illustrates why its use was incorrect in context. Of course, power has a way of having its own way, might of "making" its positions "right", and it goes without saying that a site's moderators generally have more power on that site than an independent user, no matter how factually accurate said user's assertions are. Nevertheless, it is to be preferred that all involved parties would opt for accuracy over both privilege of power and over misinformation. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
You have missed the point. It is about the intro/lead of the TV series. Again, if you can provide an independent in the article talk page, reliable source about the summary of the TV series and not about the word " pedophilic" . To add " relationship (claims of it being pedophilic are false, since the proper clinical definition of pedophilia refers strictly to a disorder of sexual preference for prepubescent children, and has no scientific relation to socially frowned upon but biologically normative situations involving legal adults and postpubertal teen minors)" in the lead section is vandalism/distruptive. Btw, source can be any languages and wait for other editor to respond in the article talk page. Cassiopeia talk 07:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
No point was missed. Obviously the article is about the show and not about pedophilia. The problem, as I'm sure you understand, is that the Wikipedia article describing the show opens by saying that the show is about a pedophillic relationship, which is blatantly false. It is misinformation, and if kept in when already known to be misinformation, it is disinformation, both about the show itself and about what is and is not pedophilia. Because the word pedophillic is used in the article as a descriptor, the disclaimer should be present. The fact that the original source for the article was some pop-culture magazine that itself incorrectly used the Spanish language variant of pedophillic ( pop-culture mag. writers are often not experts in medical, scientific or related fields, and often make mistakes and, deliberately or not, spread misinformation ) is no excuse for leaving that erroneous misinformation unto disinformation in a Wikipedia article, especially when the stated goal of Wikipedia is to be as factual and accurate as is possible for an internationally utilized and predominant online encyclopedia. Letting the error stand without caveat is as irresponsible and misinforming as if a Wikipedia article about the movie "Free Willy" were to use, as its source, a pop-culture magazine derived synopsis wherein the writer described the movie as being "a story about a boy who befriends a captive great white shark...": it is virtually unimaginable that the Wikipedia moderators would not, in such a situation, at least place the correctional note in the article that Willy, the featured marine animal in the movie, is in point of fact not a great white shark at all, but is instead a mammal, specifically a whale. The exact same principle applies here. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente § Not "pedophilic"
Further discussion of this topic should occur at the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 20:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB: You indeed have missed the point and I guess because you might not familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines . (1) We have explained to you on why you received the messages on your talk page (2) We asked you to provide an independent, reliable source in any languages on the TV series summary, so we may know what the TV show is all about and not the source/definition of "pedophilic" for we work with the independence, reliable source info and not your, I or any other editors interpretation for we are all anonymous editors here. (3) We also asked your to bring the discussion to the article talk page and see what other editor would say and hopefully an unanimous agreement would be reached of the choice of word. Since you have raised the issues on the article talk page, then pls wait for interested editors to respond and pls all future comments of this issues be directed at the article talk page and not on my talk page as the article talk page is the proper venue for this discussion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to go back and forth about "missing points". I understood all that you said about the page, but surely you must understand that when a page about a series presents misinformation or disinformation about said series by misrepresenting ( deliberately or not ) the nature of the show's core content matter, that must ( or at least should ) be addressed. As I said earlier, Letting the error stand without caveat is as irresponsible and misinforming as if a Wikipedia article about the movie "Free Willy" were to use, as its source, a pop-culture magazine derived synopsis wherein the writer described the movie as being "a story about a boy who befriends a captive great white shark...": it is virtually unimaginable that the Wikipedia moderators would not, in such a situation, at least place the correctional note in the article that Willy, the featured marine animal in the movie, is in point of fact not a great white shark at all, but is instead a mammal, specifically a whale. The exact same principle applies here. That said, as the topic has exhausted itself, and has also been suggested as better resolved elsewhere, I'd like to just leave our back and forth on the subject as concluded. Thank you for your comments and consideration, and God Bless. 2601:150:4100:95B0:3C35:E1BF:25EB:B7EB (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I had understood what you were saying and it should be corrected if the info is misleading or incorrect, but we need info (source) to know the what is the story of this show. (Same as the Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov book - adaptation to movie (I read the book and watched the movie several times and it is one of my favorite books and authors) - one could say Mr. Humbert is a pedophile and also hebephilia especially in the western world, but some would say no since Mr. Humbert not only in lust but also deeply in love with Lolita and Lolita is very suggestive and other would say it is acceptable for an adult male to have a sexual relationship with a minor (for certain cultures - such relation in marriages is common)). The issues is that this is Wikipedia, and not our dinner conversations or forum debates, for it is not subjective to our interpretation but the based on interpretation of the independent, reliable source or use a more neutral words to describe the relationship. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Your last statement 'The issues is that this is Wikipedia, and not our dinner conversations or forum debates, for it is not subjective to our interpretation but the based on interpretation of the independent, reliable source' strengthens the prior poster's point, and seems to be a main point of his argument. That, exactly because this is Wikipedia, a proper encyclopedic reference source that people use for accurate factual information, it is important to use proper textbook definitions of terms, especially very serious terms like pedophilia, in article descriptions. The difference, and it is a major difference, regarding Lolita vs. this show or American Beauty, Euphoria, the Itallian Netflix show Baby etc., is that Lolita centers on a story that actually features what can be factually described as textbook pedophilia, whereas the other shows mentioned, including this one, absolutely do not. There are fair arguments that can be raised about whether the relationship in Lolita strictly meets the pedophilia standard, since the female co-lead character is not technically prepubescent, since puberty often starts a year or two prior to 13, since the male character may not be exclusively attracted to girls that young etc., and there are doctors and other clinicians debating those issues even now. HOWEVER, as the character is 12 at the onset of the infatuation/relationship, and may be in only the very early stages of puberty, the relationship falls within the guidelines of what can technically be properly defined as pedophillic or at least bordering on it. The same CANNOT be accurately said of the other works mentioned. The relationships featured in them simply fall too far outside of the scientifically accepted boundaries for what even somewhat qualifies as pedophilia. To say that a relationship ( or artistic/filmic/narrative/televised depiction thereof ) between a man ( or any adult ) and a fully postpubertal, childbearing age, adult-sized, working and driving eligibility age 16 or 17 year old is "pedophillic" or "pedophilia" is just a blatant falsehood at best and a dangerous lie. It also renders the very meaning of the word pedophile irrelevant, since the word is based on real, observable biological criteria and phenomena. If male sexual attraction to and/or relationships with fully postpubertal 17 year old females were "pedophilia", then similar relationships between adult males and similar looking/behaving ( to the aforementioned 17 year olds ) 18 year old or even 20 females could also be described as "pedophilia", especially if the male were more than a couple years older: go down that road and you start veering right into the nonsense territory where 40 something Leonardo Dicaprio is being called a "pedophile" for dating a 24 year old woman. Facts matter, especially when distortion of said facts or disinformation surrounding a sensitive topic can be dangerously inflammatory and incendiary if handled irresponsibly. A 40 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 12 year old may in fact be pedophillic ( depending on the details ) and is most likely hebephillic. A man of any age having a sexual relationship with a postpubertal 17 year old who cannot be casually told apart, agewise, ( without peeking under the proverbial hood and looking at birth certificates or other identifying documents ) from a similar looking 18 to 21 year old, is NOT pedophillic, period point blank, by definite scientific standards, and it should never be conflated as such. Coming back to your closing comment, "it is not subjective to our interpretation but the based on interpretation of the independent, reliable source or use a more neutral words to describe the relationship...", this is a statement upon which you, I, and I believe the poster you were in debate with, agree entirely, and that is exactly why I agree with the other poster that a correction or, as he said, disclaimer, is important. Because philosophical debates over nuance are for, as you say, the dinner table, but strict factual definitions, rather than uninformed colloquial slang usage, are the appropriate standard for a prominent online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Ft109 (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Ft109 You missed the point. Wikipedia is not about the true nor what we think about the subject - see Wikipedia:But it's true! but about verification of independent, reliable sources. We the editor would input the content as per sources of the subject (the article which means the Spanish TV series and not about the word "pedophile/hebephillic") and our opinions of the subject (The tv series) do not count. Secondly, pls go to the article talk page - see Talk:90-60-90, diario secreto de una adolescente to discuss the matter as a discussion of the issue has been raised and not my talk page for it is not the right venue for the discussion. Cassiopeia talk 05:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Apologies 😟

Hello Cassiopeia, I hope you're fine. I want to apologise for being off wiki for a very long time without informing you, even though one of your instructions was “If you need to take a break from editing Wikipedia for more than 2 weeks, pls inform me so I may know.” I'm really sorry I didn't inform you at anytime. I was just on and off and not stable. But it's better now than it was before and I'm having sometime for this space now. I'm really sorry and if it will happen again, I'll let you know on time. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Idoghor Melody Good day. No worries. Good to know that you are well and have time to continue the program. Just work on where you left off and ping me when you have finished the assignment. Take good care and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia: Thanks for your understanding. I've already finished the assignment and I pinged you there too before dropping a message here Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Idoghor Melody Saw your ping. (you can just ping me in the program page, unless I didnt response after a week, then ping me here to remind me). I will review the assignment in next two days. Cassiopeia talk 23:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia: Alright... Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

JJ Aldrich

Information icon Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at JJ Aldrich. In particular, please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people, especially with respect to personal information that has not been widely disseminated.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. In addition, any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention.

Dancter (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Dancter pls note that the source is third party and not original research. Cassiopeia talk 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It's one source, as in "not multiple." "Third party" does not mean it is not a primary source. Your interpretation of her name is an interpretation not explicitly supported by that source. That is, by definition, original research. It may seem pedantic, but personal information of living persons is subject to higher standards of verifiability and coverage. Dancter (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Dancter To add info in the article, we dont need multiple sources as the source is independent and reliable and not original research. Secondly, the subject WP:common name and WP:NICKNAME is JJ Aldrich and not her full name so as per MOS:FULLNAME, the full name should be stated in the WP:Lead section and "If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial. The quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Example- see MOS:NICKNAME - example - From Bunny Berigan---> Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan; From Magic Johnson--> Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr.. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I linked multiple policies in my comment above expressing that in this type of case, multiple sources do need to exist to support the claim. Many address the issue of primary sources. "Secondary" and "independent" do not mean the same thing. It is still a primary source. Also, yes, I am aware of the Manual of Style guidelines. They do not supersede core content policies, and do not address the fact that you are interpreting a string of text listed on a form such that a portion of that string is the nickname, and the other portion is the full name, despite the string not including quotation marks or other indicators to support that interpretation. Dancter (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Dancter Multiple sources is for OR and not independent, reliable sources. Multiple independent, reliable sources are needed for the contribution of the subject notability and not for one content in the whole article. If you disagreed with the manual of style then you can open a discussion in the MOS talk page. I understand the info above, as I am one of the trainers for new page reviewer in Wikipedia. You sent a message on OR and it is not OR and if it is IRS then not multiple sources are needed. If so billions content of billion of articles in Wikipedia would be removed and if multiple IRS is needed on all info added in the article that would be over citation. Even primary source could be used sparingly as long as it is directly personal to the subject. Cassiopeia talk 02:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources is for verifiability of exceptional claims. Original research is original research, regardless of how many sources are used. I've been driving home the point about secondary sources (which is a crucial aspect of verifiability policy), and you're pretending that it is enough that the source is "independent" (which is disputable in the case, given that the source is the sports commission officiating the event the subject participated in) and "reliable" (which I would also say is disputable in this case, given that what it states does not exactly match what you presented in the article). I'm not disagreeing with the Manual of Style. I am saying that you don't get to ignore WP:BLP and parts of WP:V and WP:OR in order to include a type of information that some other articles have just because the Manual of Style describes how it should be formatted. WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources may be used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I am arguing that this is a case of you misusing a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:LPNAME: "widely published," "widely disseminated." The key term being "widely." You have only one source that is not prominently distributed or propagated. You are being insensitive to the subject's privacy given that your edit in question was apparently an effective revert of an edit that she made to the article herself. Dancter (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Dancter Again, The source is not an OR or primary source and source info is public information on the site. As mentioned, primary source can be used sparingly as long as the info is directly about the subject. I reverted your edit as it is not OR source. Guess you might not be happy with my previous communication in your talk page as first your claimed OR which is not and scond you claimed multiple source which IRS does not need multiple citation, third MOS issues yet it is as per MOS guidelines and then tjje name which is public info on IRS. We agree we disagreed. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the source is not OR. Your content based on that source was OR, as I explained. Just because information can be found on the public internet does not mean it is appropriate to cover it on Wikipedia. WP:BLP addresses this in depth. Again, "widely published," "widely disseminated." You say that it is not a primary source, but a primary source can be used. So, without explaining how, you're saying it's not, but it's okay if it was. You state that it's okay because a primary source can be used as long as it is directly about the subject. It's not directly about the subject. It is about an event the subject participated in. Also, I didn't "first" claim one thing and then claim another thing "second," "third MOS issues," and then "move to name" as you seem to be implying that I've been shifting my arguments over the course of this discussion. I had multiple issues with your edit, and addressed each of them from the beginning. I mentioned both "first" original research and "second" multiple sourcing for sensitive claims in my original comment, in which "name" has been the point of contention from the start. There was no need to "move to name." You were the one to bring up "third" the "MOS issues" as an attempt to rebut my claims without addressing them substantively, and I've been saying that MoS is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Dancter (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Dancter We agree we disagreed. Cassiopeia talk 04:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Singapore Guards

Hi! Thank you for reaching out. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia and I’m not familiar with how to reply your message to me, hopefully this is the correct way to contact you. Anyway, thank you for bringing up the lack of citation. The source of the information actually comes from my own experience as a Guardsman in the Lightstrike company. I have noticed that while there is a lot of information on the Guards heliborne and amphibious operations, with a lot of emphasis on their heliborne rappelling skills while information on the Lightstrike vehicle and it’s operators and role within the unit is sorely lacking despite the fact that the LSV is a big part of the Guards Formation and their role within the unit is also a big reason Guards are an elite unit and also another thing that separates them from the regular infantry units. The LSV is always featured prominently whenever SAF shows a picture of the unit. Can you give me some advice as to how to include the Lightstrike Vehicles and their operator’s roles? Amethyst Tsyhtema (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Amethyst Tsyhtema Good day. Thank you for the message above and you have contacted me correctly in my talk page. Information added or changed needs to be supported by independent, relaible source such as from the newspapers or books. You own experiences can not be added into the article as you are not an independent (since you have the association with the subject) and not reliable since you are not from a well-reputable source. Furthermore, you have a conflict of interest here since you are associated with the subject you are strongly discourage to edit the page. You can WP:Request edit by providing independent, reliable source in the article talk page and any interested editors will add the info accordingly. Cassiopeia talk 06:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #513

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Scribe is a keyboard extension based on lexicographical data that can help users remember grammar rules (see blogpost above).
    • WorldlEH is a wordle clone in Basque.
  • Development
    • [Significant Change]: wbsearchentities changed to explicitly return display terms and matched term
    • Lexicographical data: Working on the lookup for language and lexical category and displaying potential errors during Lexeme creation
    • Improved the API response of the wbsearchentities endpoint by adding the language to the labels and descriptions in the API response (phab:T104344)
    • Data Reuse Days: Second and final week - organized, attended and held a few sessions incl. bug triage hour and pink pony session
    • REST API: Continuing work on getting the the data of an Item, we almost have filtering of the data returned by the API and basic error handling is in place. Next up: not returning the data if the client already has the most recent data, and authentication

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2022-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a simple new Wikimedia Commons upload tool available for macOS users, Sunflower.

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of regular database maintenance. It will be performed on 29 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 31 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [11][12]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot ‱ Contribute ‱ Translate ‱ Get help ‱ Give feedback ‱ Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

CVUA Request

Hi @Cassiopeia, I'm interested in learning more about counter-vandalism - I see that you have a student slot open. Wondering if you'd be able to provide some training? P.S. I'm not in your timezone unfortunately, but none of the current trainers are. Hope that’s okay. P.S. I'm not in your timezone unfortunately, but none of the current trainers are. Hope that’s okay. dizzyflamingo (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

dizzyflamingo Good day. Thank you for interested in joining the program. Time zone different is not the matter as I edit Wikipedia daily. Pls note that the program do require you to spend a lot of time on the reading material and doing the assignments. Most of the participants would complete the program between 2-3 months; however, there is no time limit set in completion of the program. If you are still interest then pls complete WP:TWA to understand some of the basic Wikipedia guidelines and pop back. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Cassiopeia, I will complete that now :) I don't mind spending time on reading/assignments - I'm excited to learn. My work schedule is demanding, but it sounds like there is flexibility as to when the items can be completed so I don't foresee an issue. I'll get back to you after WP:TWA. Cheers dizzyflamingo (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

CVUA Request

Hi @Cassiopeia, I'm interested in learning more about counter-vandalism - I see that you have 2 student slots open. Wondering if you'd be able to provide some training? P.S. I'm not in your timezone unfortunately, but none of the current trainers are. Hope that’s okay. I am Rjsb0192 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2022 (GST)

I am Rjsb0192 Good day. Thank you for interested in joining the program. The min total main space edit to join the program is 200 and currently you have only 158 total main space edit - see here [13]. When you have reached the requirement and you are still interested to join the program then pls pop back here and at the mean time pls complete WP:TWA to understand some of the basic Wikipedia guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 09:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Abuse of power

Blocking me from editing for putting in a fact that you could’ve easily googled? Self evidence of why you shouldn’t possess the ability to do so. Faxspitter (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Faxspitter Good day. Info added or changed needs to be supported by independent, reliable source (IRS), such as from the newspapers, for verification, and the editor who makes the edit needs to provide the source - see WP:BURDEN and WP:PROVEIT. You have been informed and warmed many times of the not providing source and you continued to do so even you have been informed if you continued to do so, you would be blocked. I didnt block you but you were blocked by other admin. If you want to put back the info pls provide the source to avoid being blocked again, and again, source can be in any languages - see example Islam Makhachev. Cassiopeia talk 01:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassiopeia/Archive_77&oldid=1087060840"