Index of archives

Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary.

• File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg
• File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg
• File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg

Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the WP:MTC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, WP:IMAGES has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at WP:HELPDESK or (if uploaded at Commons) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently this page's protection was raised.

The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet.

Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage.

But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags.

The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description.

A disputed and misinterpreted claim

"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion.

An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org.

While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article.

I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism.

Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide".

I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing

page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article.

Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself.

I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion

I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salekin.sami36: This refers to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and the fact that I applied indefinite WP:ECP protection as a result of a request at WP:RPPI. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a contentious topic. All you can do is make suggestions at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See WP:DR which would probably lead to an WP:RFC. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved,

after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.Salekin.sami36 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's why the topic is contentious. A relevant essay might be WP:CPUSH but again, I have no knowledge of the topic and no ability to decide who is correct regarding the content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm glad {{hrd}} has been useful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnuniq. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk (Talk:Robert FitzRoy) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on Chris Brown since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on 212 pages, which per WP:HRT is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: I template-protected {{PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at 29 February 2020. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at WP:RPPD where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to go to WP:RFPD. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.

My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have WP:TRAINWRECK issues.)

I will note that I have been making use of WP:RMT when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the OP, and this isn't the original notification location, but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapsax: Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at Talk:WTIC-FM which would justify a longer block (the previous block for Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and attempts to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. Mapsax (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put a great deal of effort into it because, as you say, the chance of getting a response is very low. However, if there is no effort it is hard to justify, say, a three-month block on the basis that the IP would have failed to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq warned me that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]