Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page. Make sure you sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

New to Wikipedia? - hello! See Wikipedia:Welcome, Wikipedia:Help, and Wikipedia:My first article for useful advice to get you started. If those don't help you, then by all means please do come back and ask me your question(s).

Can't edit my talk page archives? If there is anything (chiefly privacy stuff) you would like removing or amending, let me know below or by email. If you are unsure whether you want everyone seeing your message, don't post it here - again, email me.


Great Acronym Experiment 2018

So we need a target for WP:RFG, WP:RFJ, WP:RFK, WP:RFL, WP:RFN, WP:RFQ, WP:RFY, and WP:RFZ. Nominative determinism ho! Fish+Karate 14:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just need WP:RFG, WP:RFJ, WP:RFK, WP:RFN, and WP:RFZ now. Fish+Karate 08:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFN - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Makes sense. Four to go. Fish+Karate 10:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RPP comment

Regarding this comment, three editors reverting a single IP user is not edit warring by any stretch of the definition. It is incorrect to call this edit warring and the most effective response to a disruptive user on a dynamic ipv6 range is semi protection of the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is to stop vandalism or serious disruption, it’s not intended to be a tool to ensure that logged-in editors can get the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits were not vandalism. Nor were they disruptive. Fish+Karate 04:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, others disagreed. But when an ip editor gets to 3rr, I'd rather see a semi pro than go to ani, personally. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, you could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Why was the user being disruptive? I do actually look into this stuff before I hit the protect button, and while yes they have, just (by 35 minutes) breached WP:3RR, the edit they are making doesn't seem completely unreasonable or disruptive. Have you tried discussing this on the article talk page as if they were a human being, to understand why some may object to a murdered teenager being referred to as a 'black man' instead of templating them? Does it really matter that much, given that it's a throwaway line in a garbage pop trivia section that doesn't belong in the article anyway? Fish+Karate 09:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vandalism vs. ordinary vandalism

Thank you for putting ECP on Philip Hamilton. Just FYI... your comment indicates that you read the page history as sock vandalism, and I'm guessing that's because WP:DUCK. I've been patrolling against what I've labeled the "Hamiltrash pattern of vandalism" for almost 2 years now, and for whatever it's worth, I don't think much of it has been sock vandalism. There's definitely been meatpuppetry on the John Laurens page (which was admitted by one of the meats during a SPI, and was adequately dealt with), but the kind of vandalism I usually see on Hamilton-related pages looks decentralized to me. Nationwide, a lot of high school kids are big Hamilton fans, enough that it doesn't take sockpuppetry to account for the number of editors who add Hamilton references to Wikipedia articles. For what it's worth. Anyway, thanks again for the ECP, which has been very effective. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwarrenwiki: I have to pick something as the reason for protection, and that was as good a choice as any :) End result is the same, article is protected from nonsense vandalism. Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC close on Kingdom Come Deliverance

Hi! Could you provide a brief summary of your read of the consensus at your close at Kingdom Come: Deliverance beyond it being a consensus to keep it out? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Hello Peter, what's happening? When there's no significant policy or guideline backing one 'side' versus the other in a binary yes/no discussion, then it basically boils down to head counting. There were only three editors participating who wanted to retain that statement in the article, and far more wanted to exclude it, even if I discount Fustos as a blocked editor. Fish+Karate 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that this is just my idiot opinion, so if I make an obvious mistake let me know- if information is sourced and there's no reason to remove it, that makes it okay for inclusion. Even with more people 'voting' (head counting?) that it should be removed, I would think the onus is on inclusion unless there is an actual reason to remove it. If you see no significant policy or guideline on either 'side', then I don't see why you believe the material should be removed or see any consensus that would advocate such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:ONUS which says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if I am wrong and there's a reason you read a consensus for removal - please put that in your close so idiots like me don't get confused in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Okay for inclusion" does not mean "must be included". As well as a policy/guideline bar, there's also an 'encyclopedic value' bar. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content or Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. If there's no strong policy or guideline advocating one way or the other, then yes it does boil down to voting (head counting means the same thing). Fish+Karate 11:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please put that in your close at the page that the consensus you read was a vote count? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? To what end? Fish+Karate 07:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So people who wish to know your reasoning can see it. In the interest of speeding things up, I'll make my own comment. If you view it as unrepresentative, feel free to clarify at the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to do so, feel free. Fish+Karate 09:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Many thanks for closing that RFC, I didn't envy you the task! Yunshui 雲水 10:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: Thank you, always appreciated. Fish+Karate 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles

Now that the real draw has been announced (and added to the article), can you unprotect 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles now? Thanks. Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Fish+Karate 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update Jennifer Wingets Page.

Hey since you are authorised to update semi protected pages would you help us update Jennifer Winget's Wikipedia page. The information on the page has not been update from quite some time and a lot of new things have to be added. Ra13a13 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Talk:Jennifer Winget. Fish+Karate 14:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why my request for protection of nanda parbat article was decline

hi, i should have probably been more specific about my reasoning for why i wanted the article on Nanda Parbat to be protected. yes, i'm well aware that NANDA parbat is not a real mountain. However, NANGA parbat is (notice the difference in spelling) and is located in pakistan. Unfortunately, some propagandists and vandals feel the need to regularly change the wikipedia article for NANDA parbat so that it reads that the real world NANGA parbat is located in india, which it isn't.

therefore i would like you to reconsider your declination of my request and look into the issue for a slightly longer amount of time than previously. thanks

Hi @Gangadesh721: - while I do understand your point, the article has only had two instances of vandalism in the past week, and four in the past three months, which is not enough to justify protecting the page anyway. Fish+Karate 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks

Oh

The perils of closing an RfC! -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm having a little break from closing any more. Which is probably why Wikipedia:Requests for closure is rapidly expanding, but hey-ho. Fish+Karate 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page protection request

Can you protect List of wars involving India just like you protected List of wars involving Pakistan from nationalist vandalism?[1] Orientls (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orientls:. Please request this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks, Fish+Karate 19:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

@Gazoth: Yep. Fish+Karate 14:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. —Gazoth (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notification?

Re: this, I did not receive a notification. If I had not been notified by another editor via email that the discussion was taking place, I wouldn't have known about it. The absence of a notification seems underhanded to me, although, to be fair, I suppose it could have just been an oversight. Still... -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Apologies - as I was the third person contributing to that thread I kind of assumed you’d been notified and didn’t think to check. Fish+Karate 20:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Strange – MP/E

Sorry, I was trying to achieve chronological order. Sca (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Shah protection

You have recently declined the full protection of this page [2]. I am fine with this decision, and I am not going to dispute it in any way (in fact, I just happened to have this page on my watchlist, I did not edit is since May I believe). However, if I were an admin acting on this request I would take a different decision. Sure it is a content dispute but it resulted in massive warring, which all occurred within a day or two. Would you mind to spend a couple of minutes and write several lines of more extended motivation, so that I could understand your reasoning better (the part on the abbreviations I got, no need to repeat that one again). The page is currently in the same state as it was when I submitted the request (so that probably the protection was indeed not needed in the end). No hurry. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: The article has had three edits in the past 24 hours. This is not sufficient to justify protection. Fish+Karate 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I would agree that three edits would not be enough, unless introducing BLP violations (which is not the case here). But why do not you count the preceding edits of Huldra and NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (they were split by smaller edits, but essentially Huldra was removing, and NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM restoring the same material). That would make it two days and five reverts in total? Do you think it is still insufficient? I am in this case trying to understand whether it is a borderline case for you, or are you firmly on the decline side. I never had issues with your admin decisions, meaning in the latter case I might need to readjust my own criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I think I have enough info. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Premium Puzzle

When are we going to unblock the Equity Premium Puzzle page? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_premium_puzzle)

I am not sure why FNAS unjustified edits are protected while the many people which disagree with him are being ignored. That is a case of vandalism in itself.

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

  • The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Brilliant stuff --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helping maintain the integrity of the Main Page!

The Outlaw Halo Award
In the last 17 days alone, we've identified and fixed more than 100 errors at the ALL NEW TRM ERRORS page!! Thanks so much for your diligence and your dedication to ensuring our readers get the best possible experience from Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I happened across your user page and noticed you applied some rotation. I guess that is meant to be funny, but I would like to point out that it can be a pretty significant accessibility problem for people and as such goes against: Wikipedia:User_pages#Simulation_and_disruption_of_the_MediaWiki_interface —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Can you please explain to me how a small amount of rotation "prevents important links or controls from being easily seen or used", or "makes text on the page hard to read or unreadable"? I have searched and can find no evidence that such rotation causes accessibility issues. I am happy to have my mind changed on this, but it will take more than an assertion. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got here from your message on my talk page. As a user of a desktop screen reader, it doesn't make any difference to me ... but I don't know about any effect it may have on other assistive devices. Graham87 09:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham. Fish+Karate 09:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Readability is one of the points that accessibility is judged on. This is not specifically for blind users and their assistive devices, but targeted mostly at those with 'reduced' vision, people with cognitive disabilities and people with neurological disabilities (epilepsy). For that reason things like blinking effects are not allowed, text should be zoomable to at least 400% and reflow, spacing between lines and sufficient fonts size are for instance taken into account etc etc etc. Now there is no specific rule against tilting (probably because no one ever figured it common enough to write it down).
However it made me feel physically uneasy while reading your page and I have no diagnosed disabilities and am not 80 years old. My mind WANTS it to be a horizontal line, interprets it as a horizontal line and then has to reconcile that with the truth of the other actual horizontal lines on the screen/screen itself (See also Visual tilt effects). This creates a mild amount of vertigo for me. This is also why things like Parallax-effects and 3D background animations on phones can be disabled for accessibility purposes. Now since I have no diagnosed vertigo inducing disabilities, I can only guess at how it makes people feel who do. "Not good" doesn't seem to be farfetched however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note your personal dislike of my user page and thank you for the feedback. Fish+Karate 11:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @TheDJ: for bringing this up. I was just about to raise the issue with Fish and karate when I saw your thread. Hi Fish and karete. I too stumbled upon your user page. As someone who suffers from epilepsy with vision problems, it almost triggered an attack and I immediately had to leave the page. It is too strong. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Senegambianamestudy: @TheDJ: Apologies, forgot to ping you both the other day in order to let you know I have removed the slight rotation. Fish+Karate 13:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Civil Catalana

Dear Fish and karate I would like to ask you about the status of the complaint you put here [3] about the article [[4]]. I think the article should be categorized as "under dispute" like this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

until the things are clarified. I think this article is not balanced. There were many editors like and me and others who were not happy with the version of Filiprino.

Thanks and regards --Manlorsen (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manlorsen: If you are unhappy with the content of the article then the appropriate place to discuss your concerns is on the talk page of the article. I do not know enough about the topic area to be of much help to you, I'm afraid. Fish+Karate 13:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

To help you wake up. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. appropriate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Re your closure of the Kane Tanaka DRV: there was canvassing, there were lots of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes, there were quite a few well-argued "endorse" !votes. I'm surprised that this was closed as "consensus to overturn" (and overturned to what, keep? No consensus?) At best, this was a no consensus. Weighing the policy-based arguments and ignoring canvassing and OSE, this would be an "endorse". I'd appreciate if you could have another look at this close. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randykitty:. I have had another look and I am happy that I judged the consensus at the DRV reasonably. Thanks. Fish+Karate 13:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having another look. Itn fact, it is my impression that you re-closed the AfD, instead of closing the DRV. Anyhow, normally when a DRV is overtunred, the closer indicates what it is overturned to. Is this an "overturn to keep" or an "overturn to no consensus" (defaulting to keep)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Randykitty: In line with the consensus at the DRV, the decision to delete (redirect) was overturned. There was a mix of preferences for overturn as no consensus / overturn as keep, I’d say “overturn as no consensus to delete” is reasonable. Would you like me to add that to my DRV closing summary? Fish+Karate 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please confirm what weight you gave to canvassed votes and how many votes you considered were canvassed. What weight you gave to votes that included unevidenced accusations of bad faith or bias on my part. In concluding that i made a supervote you found a consensus that I wilfully acted against consensus rather than that I reached a good faith different interpretation of consensus. Please confirm which opinions persuaded you of this and the clear policy error I made that meant that my decision could only be explained by assuming bad faith on my part. Spartaz Humbug! 18:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spartaz:. That I acted in bad faith is an assumption on your part. To be clear, please be aware I don’t think you were acting in bad faith, just as I’m sure you didn’t assume the majority of participants in the original AFD were acting in bad faith. Accusing someone of acting in bad faith just because they read a consensus differently to how you did does not mean they acted in bad faith. If anything, it’s rather an unfair accusation on your part. To answer your points I don’t consider any of the participants to have been canvassed. To do so barring obvious evidence would be - yep - bad faith. I didn’t personally conclude you made a supervote, the DRV consensus, as I read it when closing a deletion review nobody else apparently wanted to close, was that you did. I hope that answers your questions, please let me know if it does not. I’m away til Monday now but will pick this up then if needed. Cheers, Fish+Karate 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate&oldid=857443769

Leave a Reply