Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tbhotch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I love it. We're missing hundreds of Latin American songs and our existing articles are badly shaped. Unfortunately starting the next month I won't be able to edit as consistently as I'm currently editing. I can continue collaborating with article creations and ratings others' articles but not in the intended competitive way of the edithon. (CC)Tbhotch™20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Understood. If you'd like you can volunteer to be the judge of the competition since we technically don't have one at the moment. All you'd have to do is update the points from the submissions. On an unrelated note, have you seen List of best-selling Latin albums? I worked on it last year with other editors and thought you might want to know that it exists. Thanks again as always Tbhotch! Erick (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Response
The page WP:IUP#FORMAT is on states it's a policy (image-use policy), although its points about file formats obviously can't or isn't going to be enforced. As for alt= being a present parameter, it is part of the larger push to make Wikimedia projects more accessible for visually impaired readers, and MOS:ACCESS is a Wikimedia policy. Tbhotch, I came to you with recommendations that would be beneficial. Please don't be antagonistic towards me for no reason. Please assume good faith of my coming here. Thank you. Ss11217:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ss112: So let me get this straight. Rather than taking the revert as a read and understood, you just doubled down with more unrequested Wikisplaining. Because you apparently want a real answer here it is. You are listing three things that are so trivial and have no impact to the project, so irrelevant that as you said they can't be enforced by anyone by any mean. The addition of File: adds nothing to the infobox but neither is its removal. It doesn't create lint errors or miscategorizations. It's just noise if you want to name it. So is an empty |alt=. The infobox automatically list the page to the category Category:Album articles lacking alt text for covers regardless if the parameter is there or not. As far as I can see [1] I didn't remove it and whoever added the infobox forgot it or considered an empty parameter to be that, noise. As far as I can remember I merely removed the |border parameter to pages with non-white covers. Unless the addition of that empty parameter automatically add the alt text "album cover", you can't come and argue that the parameter is "necessary because visually impaired readers need it" because now the know what the image is about; as an empty parameter the most likely thing that would happen is that they are listening to the name of the archive. And thirdly, there are 23,000 infoboxes lacking images. I'm not going to waste way more time looking for png images or transforming them myself when unavailable solely because a page merely recommends to use png instead of jpg just because it looks slighlty better; the same page recommends to use svg on logos but I don't have the tools to recreate such images, but I'm certainly won't stop uploading such logos. Thank you for the recommendations, an equal recommendation I can give: don't give advices unless you're asked. It's disrespectful, patronizing and you don't know how people will react to them. Now, if there are things that are urgent to be fixed leave a message. (CC)Tbhotch™18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Museo Cabeza de Juárez
On 28 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Museo Cabeza de Juárez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the head on top of the Museo Cabeza de Juárez(pictured) inspired the pictogram of Guelatao metro station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Museo Cabeza de Juárez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Museo Cabeza de Juárez), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 28 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guelatao metro station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the head on top of the Museo Cabeza de Juárez(pictured) inspired the pictogram of Guelatao metro station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Museo Cabeza de Juárez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Guelatao metro station), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:3T - YoungstaCPT.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
On 2 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Colonia Federal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the neighborhood of Colonia Federal was built by employees of the Mexican Secretariat of the Interior to create exclusive housing for civil servants? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Colonia Federal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Colonia Federal), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 4 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coyote en Ayuno, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first ray of sunlight on 23 April passes through the eye of the Coyote en Ayuno(pictured), which was built to commemorate the founding of Nezahualcóyotl, Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coyote en Ayuno. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coyote en Ayuno), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 10 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fuente de la República, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the idea for the Fuente de la República arose after Manuel Felguérez suggested a fountain to accompany his newly inaugurated Puerta 1808 to the mayor of Mexico City? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuente de la República. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fuente de la República), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
But there are none, most of the ones you will find on the web would say she was born on Guaymas, Sonora, when she was not, and they also have her birthplace wrong, she was born on 16 September not 12, so how are we supposed to prove it? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Hi again! So, I have a strange request. The article about me has been promoted to Good article status. After appearing on the Main Page's DYK section, another editor translated and nominated the entry for similar status at Spanish Wikipedia. I don't speak Spanish but the translation seems solid and the article looks almost identical to the English Wikipedia version. Curious if you have a moment to make sure the text looks good to you, before the nomination gets picked up for review. No worries if you're not interested. Happy editing! ---Another Believer(Talk)19:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer: In general, it reads OK, maybe it has a lot of uses of passive voice and impersonal passive voice, which is something the Spanish Wikipedia dislikes and recommends avoiding (it's a little hard for Latin Americans to avoid it because of the influence of the US media on language, while Spaniards are more conservative, linguistically speaking). My main concern would be that the Spanish Wikipedia is weird concerning notability. Although it has more than a million articles, most of them are in bad shape and barely indicate notability. This one, of course, meets the basic criteria here and there--which is basically the same--, but I've seen articles about influencers (and Internet people in general) being deleted solely because of that, being Internet people. PewDiePie, for example, was deleted 5 times between 2013 and 2017 and, at least the last time it was deleted, it had several sources indicating notability. The admin that deleted the page that last time, however, considered that "The case of YouTubers is clear: they create videos commenting on a particular topic and receive subscriptions from users who watch their videos via YouTube. The merit they receive is exclusively and focused on that medium. With this user, you do not see any particularity that they have done outside of it, so it is not relevant in encyclopedic terms", even though that Pie was already notable outside YouTube by 2017. I can't determine whether or not that article would survive an AFD there, hopefully, it won't be nominated, but it is something to keep in mind. (CC)Tbhotch™20:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for the feedback and for making improvements to the entry! Curious to see how the nomination goes. Take care for now! ---Another Believer(Talk)21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fakesmiletoo: If you go to the provided link you will read that the album was first released on August 30 on iTunes GB. Subsequent releases (i.e. the American release on September 3) are not relevant for the introduction of the article. (CC)Tbhotch™23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
and u will keep being based on the wrong data base? because the apple music are wrong too. (says it was released on jan 1st, 2013)
@Fakesmiletoo: And this is why I said "the world does not revolve around the United States". For some weird reason, Americans are the only users that frequently come to Wikipedia to "fix" release dates that are not incorrect. Yes, Ariana said that, yes, there are sources with that date. But her record label released it on a different date in a different country. What's difficult to understand about that? And of course, the iTunes link doesn't say that. This is an archived copy that clearly reads:
£8.99
Genres: Pop, Music, R&B/Soul, Dance, Contemporary R&B, Vocal, Rock
Released: 30 August 2013
℗ 2013 Universal Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc.
Now, if you dislike the album being released on a different date than the one you know about, blame it on her record label. We only go by the earliest known, not the one where the artist comes from. (CC)Tbhotch™23:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: her own label recognizes the release date on sep 3....
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:...And Stuff - Psychostick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Antena 3.ro.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
On 8 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antimonumento +43, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the anti-monument to the 43 students kidnapped in 2014(pictured) was also dedicated to the thousands of people reported missing in Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento +43. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Antimonumento +43), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello Tbhotch I recently created Draft:Darwin Del Fabro, about a queer Brazilian singer/actor and was hoping that you or another member of WP:LGBT/PERSON would be kind enough to take a look and let me know how it could be improved. Or, if it looks ok, to move it to the mainspace. Thank you in advance for your help and consideration. 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Volcom95 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Looks like there were a couple copy-paste errors in his name, but please double check my 'corrections' are actually corrections. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The moving IP changing the nationality on this article takes no notice of other users, as you have probably noticed in the edit history, despite the fact that there is a debate in the first page of the talk page archives that came to the conclusion that "British" would be best. Even worse is their insistence that Natalie Imbruglia is English, despite the fact that she was born in Australia and only has a British passport, so it's OR to state that she is English as there is no way of proving this. But apart from page protection I'm not sure what can be done, and the IP is moving onto other pages to change nationalities as well. Richard3120 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, nice spot, thanks. I did wonder whether a range block would be a possibility. I'm not fanatical about having the "correct" UK nationality, but it does seem to me that if there is a previous consensus or a long-standing existing nationality, it shouldn't just be changed without agreement. And the Natalie Imbruglia one is just flat out wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:IPN Seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Please engage in discussion before deleting others’ comments to your talk page. I’m open, always, to being reminded of exceptions to policy and understanding how you think they apply in this situation. Deleting my comment is inappropriate. ZsinjTalk16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
In fact, it is not @Zsinj:, I can as per WP:OWNTALK. I highly suggest you to not take things personal and behave as an admin if you are going to ask for such position rather than taking sides.
The other editor was not blocked when you made a fourth revert. WP:3RRNO #3 is not applicable. Sorry if the warning template is abrasive. See how I engaged in discussion? My only request was to discuss in lieu of deleting my outreach. ZsinjTalk16:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
So it wasn’t obvious to me until further reviewing the history of Tulisa that the added/reverted edits were the same as those related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky. Your edit summary removing my warning did not reference the LTA, leaving me in the dark. Admins are not expected to be omnipotent, so I thank you for your patience while I understood broader context. I semi-protected the page after HJ beat me to blocking the IP. Happy editing. ZsinjTalk16:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The user is banned. It doesn't matter if the active IP/user is blocked or not, or if it is under an SPI investigation, or if it is under an admin review, the user is evading a block and a ban and WP:3RRNO applies by itself. 3RRNO does not "activate" solely because an admin determines one of the parties is indeed a banned editor, and the banned editor doesn't get a get-out-of-the-jail card to do whatever they want solely because they have not been verified as sockpuppets or they can change their IP by simply turning off their modem or changing their physical location. That's called WP:gaming the system and Maria perfectly knows that she is gaming the system and that's why she engages in such behavior.[4]
And I can explain to you in simple terms (it was simpler in my mind but I extended a little more) why I (and others) "edit-war" with this banned editor (and others who behave in the same way), because in our experience following the protocol rarely works immediately unless the admin notices it already knows Maria (or the banned editors). Banned editors wake up to edit "in good faith". They can do it for hours, days, or even months and act like normal editors, but at the moment they are caught, they go reckless because they know they have been caught and they will be blocked soon, so edit-warring starts as that's the last thing that they can do, but they want us to go down with them, because they know we have a 3RR policy, and if an unsuspecting admin believes that both parties are edit-warring for the seek of edit-warring, they will perform admin actions on both editors. Here, for example, you didn't block me, but you warned me and protected the page with no reason attached to the summary, because you were trying to figure out what was going on. Not being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent is not a reason not to investigate further. Here I said the B-word, and the amount of content removed was exactly the same as the previous revert. The editor answering with wikilanguage further indicates that the user is not a newbie as well. Repeating ourselves with "Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky" (or whatever summary that indicates who the other party is) ad nauseum gives the impression that established editors must justify every single edit they perform while (apparently) new editors are free to do as they please solely because they don't "know" how we work. Experienced editors know who are truly new and those who don't. Or for example, you telling me that "Deleting [your] comment is inappropriate", which is not in itself, especially if there is nothing to discuss or justify. For this case, the page's history was crystal clear, and if you go further you can see the same issue as far as 2010/12 when Maria was just a blocked editor evading blocks; the page's protection log even going deeper on this.
Imagine the scenario if I had acted as the protocol indicates. Maria performs the edit, what's the next step? Is the editor adding incorrect content? No. The edit is disruptive? No. The edit is vandalism? No. The user can be reported to AIV? Not by itself and I have had AIV reports of Maria (and several banned editors) declined because a: the user has not been warned correctly (or at all), b: AIV is not SPI (even with evidence), c: the edits are not vandalism or d: I should look for dispute resolution (with a banned editor, for some reason). Meanwhile, Maria has already moved to pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. The banned editor is still editing. She knows that she might be detected soon or maybe she will not. She knows that most of her edits are reverted but she also knows that she hasn't been caught in several of her edits. I stopped editing around 2014 and when I returned in 2020 I had to go back as far as 2017 to revert several of her undetected changes.
Protocol option 2, SPI: For privacy reasons, Checkuser cannot confirm or deny that the person is operating the IP. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky already has an open SPI with 4 other IPs already listed (opened 4 days ago, by the way). Why should I wait until a Checkuser decides to go to that SPI and wait for them to confirm something I already know but then decline the investigation with a "Yes, the IPs behavior is similar, but for legal reasons I cannot affirm or deny the user is the user, however, I blocked the IP to prevent further disruption" (IPs that are already assigned to another person at that point).
Protocol 3 and 4: RFPP and AN/ANI: RFPP is random sometimes the page is protected (indef for some reason despite it is not truly justified), sometimes it is not (Indigo (Chris Brown album) was not protected because there is was no justification at that point, despite being a common target for sockpuppetry as indicated by the history). The admin forum is random as well, sometimes admins proceed, sometimes the comment gets lost between other comments, and sometimes you are directed to the venues above.
What I'm trying to explain, and I'd like you to understand, is that non-admins have to excessively rely on admins who are unaware of the situation and sometimes these will unduly take a side with the new editor because #AssumeGoodFaith™ or because they don't want to review the case and engage on any admin action simply because they don't want to get in trouble if the situation was the opposite of what they thought it was. It's frustrating and tiresome, at least for me, because I have to review 5,000 pages per week. Simply saying the name of the banned editor doesn't solve the issue because she is known for accussing others of sockpuppetry as well,[5][6][7][8] so that's why it is important to see the whole picture and not to stick to what the protocol says. (CC)Tbhotch™20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Spit (album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi!
Hello, I hope you read my message, but how do you know that the article Deseo Inherente could be a hoax? I don't think a random person posted it because if you see the image it says "Sony Music Latin. All rights reserved". Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Saúl Rodrigo Martínez: Can you please share the official announcement by Sony? If the anwser is anything but a link to Sony, I would recommend you not to believe everything you find on the Internet. (CC)Tbhotch™01:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Tbhotch! I was wondering if you might be able to create an article at English Wikipedia (even just a stub!) for es:Cruz de Mañozca? I'd prefer a Spanish speaker take a first stab at a translation. Thanks in advance for any help. ---Another Believer(Talk)19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Tbhotch. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Antimonumento +72, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your many wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. I'm especially appreciative of your entries about anti-monuments in Mexico, public art, transportation, and other historic sites. You've answered many questions for me and responded to requests for translation, which is very helpful. Keep up the great work and happy editing! --Another Believer(Talk)18:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tbhotch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
