User talk:ProcrastinatingReader: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives:

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Does [[User:ProcBot/PurgeList] work for non-enwiki pages, e.g. on Meta? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, no. It will only work for enwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving the tennis mover bot (TolBot 13A). You're the only approver I know of, so I can suggest you look at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Case_cleanup_task_for_nearly_17000_tennis_articles and the associated BRFA for the corresponding cleanup edits? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't have the time, in the immediate future, to take on more BRFAs. I'm sure another BAG member (list) will respond to the request shortly, though note it isn't always a quick process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, not really. I was reading ===What information should be included in the infobox=== regarding Peter Sellars when I recalled something you wrote at a previous RfC which I meant to explore further because as times go by and the number of infobox RfC's grows, it will be increasingly relevant?

I'd also note that having a collapsed infobox is even more rare than having no infobox at all, on a developed article..."

One thing and another, never did get around to checking it out. Where can I see data re this? I couldnt find it. Cheers Moriori (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moriori, good to hear from you. Can't remember what data I used to make that comment (t'was in 2020) but if I were going to find data on the issue today: infobox collapsing is usually done with Template:Collapsed infobox section begin (that's how it was done on Frank Sinatra too). You can see the number of usages of that template here (currently 1060) and a list of pages here. It's possible to collapse without that template but more effort, so it seems safe to say 1060 is an upper bound. A lot of those articles are partial collapses, like Aung San Suu Kyi where only the ministerial offices from 2016–2021 are collapsed, so really the true number of collapsed infoboxes is a lot lower. Indeed, I checked a sample of 10 pages on the 'What links here' list and the only 'true' collapsed infobox was at Rufford Old Hall. Say the true number of collapsed IBs is 500 to be conservative (probably also too large) (aside: that's about 0.01% of all infoboxes).

For comparison, to get the number of developed articles with no infobox at all, I'd probably use a WP:Petscan query to find all GAs/FAs that don't contain {{Infobox}} or a derivative. But I'm currently a bit of short on time to play around with Petscan, so I guess that part is left as an exercise for the interested reader ;) (fwiw AntiCompositeNumber was usually my go-to for data gathering exercises; they might be interested in this.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4019 (ish) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a secondary review on Uganda Internet Exchange Point! I was conflicted on whether or not the article should be approved, and I'm glad to have a second pair of eyes on it. Cheers! SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thank you for reviewing it via AfC. Will admit some of the edits after I removed the tags are a bit more concerning, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your work on the Russian article, you've been doing a good job keeping it up to date. Rlink2 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the private filter numbered LTA 1155 blocked my citation addition to the Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg Method page. It looks like you created the filter, so I'm reaching out about the block. I reported the false positive in the usual way and got a notice from a bot that it was a private filter. I'm unsure if that's the end of the process or if there's more afterwards. Could you take a look at the edit and/or explain why it was blocked? Phlosioneer (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was sorted out by Suffusion of Yellow. Sorry for bothering you! Phlosioneer (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was resolved, sorry about the issue! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "AplexL".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say in your close that "The question that's really being asked by the available options, and the one which is being answered in the discussion, is whether the events may be called a genocide in wikivoice." But thats clearly not the case, none of the options use genocide in wikivoice, genocide is part of the article title (Uyghur Genocide) not the sentence itself. If that was the question being asked don't you think it would have actually been asked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option A does say it in wikivoice, and almost all option B arguments–particularly after the debate started w.r.t. sourcing–directly argued that the reason why option A was not suitable was because the term did not meet the burden required to make the assertion in wikivoice. Indeed, many pro-option-A arguments after the debate started also made wikivoice arguments, feeling instead that the sourcing supported the statement in wikivoice, and FormalDude (an option A supporter) was the first to directly link to WP:YESPOV. The central issue in the discussion was WP:YESPOV/WP:WIKIVOICE, not a WP:AVOIDBOLD issue per se, even though that is how the RfC originally manifested itself.

If that was the question being asked don't you think it would have actually been asked? I think RfCs often go down a different path, sometimes quite quickly, and I note a lot of the latest participants did call it a bad RfC, and one explicitly said The RfC should really be about use of the term genocide in wikivoice for this topic as oppose to an RfC purely about phrasing. (which received concurrences) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option A was "The [article name] is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." remember that the lead is agnostic in regards to the title of the article, in theory changing the title of an article should have zero impact on the lead as the underlying topic of the article does not change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many, perhaps most, option A and option B supporters felt that the prose in option A was making the statement in wikivoice. Option A supporters generally argued that the sourcing allowed this to be done, whereas option B supporters argued that the sourcing wasn't sufficient and that a serious debate existed. In fact, I think the only editor who argued in the RfC that WP:WIKIVOICE was not relevant to the selected option, or at least was not the main PAG to consider, was Compassionate727 in [14], however their position did not have support from other editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I pointed it out as well... The wikivoice argument only applies to the title, it doesn't actually apply to the discussion about the lead sentence. If editors are mistakenly applying policy their arguments are to be disregarded by the closer it doesn't matter how many there are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: you said It most certainly does not. A says "The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." not "The Uyghur genocide is the genocide committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang." which is a poor argument. The second sentence is terrible writing. Most readers of Wikipedia, even procrastinating ones are not policy wonks. They're not going to think of some technical argument that technically it's the title because it's the the WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't mean we aren't saying the the Uyghur genocide is factually a genocide. When they read the first one they're going to think we're calling it a genocide since that's what we do by that sentence. If you had come up with an alternative sentence that incorporates the title while making it clear that we are not calling it a genocide perhaps your proposal would have passed. But the version A does not. Instead it incorporates the title in such a way that it calls it a genocide in wikivoice. You're entitled to your view that it doesn't, but all the editors who disagree with you are entitled to the view it does. Since there is no policy which says the title can never be considered part of wikivoice, probably because such a policy makes no sense, our view cannot be ignored or discarded. If you're struggling think of this. A lead sentence "Myanmar is the official, correct and only name for the country which some people call by other ancient names which are completely incorrect and should never be used" is terrible for many many reasons I'm sure we both agree. But are you really going to say such a lead sentence doesn't imply something about the name Myanmar because it's simply using the COMMONNAME title? No such a title clear does say something about the name Myanmar, and we say something else very different if we rename the article to Burma changing only the word Myanmar into Burma. So no, the title of the article cannot be considered independent of the lead when it is incorporated into the lead, it's part of it and the whole sentence needs to be read as one element. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name from Myanmar to Burma would not change the underlying topic, it would still be a page about the country in SE Asia and any lead sentence that couldn't accommodate that change without a change in meaning (such as the one you suggest) would be a poor first sentence. Why set up a fictitious straw man? The intro sentence for Myanmar is "Myanmar,[a] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burmese: ပြည်ထောင်စု သမ္မတ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော်‌, [pjìdàuɴzṵ θàɴmədaa̰ mjəmà nàiɴŋàɴdɔ̀]), also called Burma,[b] is a country in Southeast Asia." which doesn't change at all in meaning if you swap Myanmar and Burma. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, you made an excellent proposal at WP:DS2021 § Comments by community members (Other) and Template talk:Ds § Combine Ds/talk notice to overhaul the {{Ds/talk notice}} banner. I have just filed a request for amendment to advance this suggestion to the Arbitration Committee again. Please feel free to comment on the request if you would like the Committee to hear your thoughts. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]