Note: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. Unless you request otherwise, I will ping you so that you know I have responded. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there.
Yes, I do work for the company, but I am not receiving any additional pay for creating this article. My intention is to provide accurate and factual information about the company.
I strive to write the article impartially and without bias, focusing solely on verifiable information. Additionally, I am an intern and will be leaving the company in a month, which reduces any potential long-term conflict of interest. Luizancoelho (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, please make a disclosure on your user page by following these instructions (I highly recommend option 3, disclosing the COI on your user page). Once you have completed those steps, I will be happy to help you determine if the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article under our notability guidelines. If the company qualifies for an article, then I will be glad to help you make sure it is well-written. But because no amount of writing can fix the fact that something is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, we would both be wasting our time polishing the draft before we determine its notability. HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the help so far. I am going to most likely need to edit most of the article, as I need to find better souces. Do you have any advice on searching for reliable sources for information about small companies? I had an idea from taking information from review websites, but even those seem to be written by the company themselves (except for the actual reviews) Luizancoelho (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luizancoelho: Thank you for disclosing the COI! Unfortunately, most small companies do not meet our notability guidelines, which require secondary, reliable, third-party sources which contain significant coverage of the company. When and where was the company founded? I can see it there are newspaper records via The Wikipedia Library, but that is the extent to which I can help. You are right that review websites are written by the companies themselves, and the reviews left by others are not reliable sources because anyone can write anything in a review. HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HouseBlaster, how are you?
Sorry for not replying sooner. I have another question regarding credibility. Can case studies be considered credible enough for my article proposal? And is there a list of websites that are redible for wikipedia? I found quite a large number of news articles regarding the company on websites such as cyber defense magazine and business wire, and cyer defense magazine.
I am doing well; thank you for asking. How are you?
We do have a list of websites that Wikipedia reliable. (Well, the list contains websites and notes if they are generally considered reliable or not.) As for case studies, it really depends. I would have to see the studies themselves to make that determination. Would you be able to link to them? HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These case studies were published by Ridge Security itself, meaning they are not independent of Ridge Security, meaning that they are not able to establish notability of Ridge Security. (Recall that notability is the standard of inclusion on Wikipedia, and no amount of writing can fix a lack of notability.) However, if Ridge Security is notable, these sources can be used per this policy section, with 5 caveats. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I went in depth on our case studies, and I believe two of them fall under the exception for the policy, as they were written by another company. I also wanted to ask you if crunchbase is considered a reliable source for the history behind the company. Luizancoelho (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are published by your company, they are unable to be used for establishing whether your company is notable. There are no exceptions to that rule. The exceptions are for determining if we can use them in an otherwise notable article. Crunchbase is in the list I sent you; as an exercise you can look it up there ;) HouseBlaster (he/they) 19:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last question: I noticed Forbes articles are a reliable source of information (except for contributors. Does that include, or exclude council members? I have an article by Forbes that talks about our company Luizancoelho (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Luizancoelho: Because all of those articles were written by the co-founder of Ridge Security, they are not independent of Ridge Security, and therefore they cannot be used to support notability. The same analysis applies to the profile; it was almost certainly written by or at least in consultation with Lydia. But even if we assume that the profile is independent, it is not a significant amount of coverage of Ridge Security itself, containing only two sentences. However, they would be reliable if you can demonstrate Ridge Security is notable. HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Government Sites are Free Use
You stated my content was "paraphrasing" for a Award Criteria. Award criteria's on Wikipedia always remain verbatim as they are specific criteria's. Furthermore you stated it was copyrighted. The source was The State of Texas and The Governors Office of Texas. Both of those cannot copyright the material such as Award Info and Criteria as it's free-use. Please learn the law and understand it before making changes. TheNathanMuir (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNathanMuir: first, if you are copying verbatim, it needs to be in quotation marks or else it is plagiarism. Next, on Wikipedia, we require that text borrowed from other sources be more than "free-use". We require that it be eligible for commercial redistribution. The Texas website says it prohibits commercial redistribution, so we cannot use it on Wikipedia. The Texas website is copyrighted: the opposite of copyrighted is in the public domain, not "free use". Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 14:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not verbatim. It was re-written hence you putting it was "paraphrased". The award which is public law is not copyrightable. Hence why every other government award on Wikipedia is written verbatim. TheNathanMuir (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works by the federal government are legally public domain, but per https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/texas/ it's not clear whether works of Texas state government are. This is the case for, e.g. works of the State of California -- but not for every state. @TheNathanMuir: The burden is on you to supply evidence that positively states that the State of Texas releases its works into the public domain (or is statutorily required to do so). This means that, for example, https://gov.texas.gov/site-policies does not count -- it simply lacks any statement on copyright for textual content -- this is not enough. jp×g🗯️16:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one ACCUSING me of Copyright Infringement, thus the burden of proof is on YOU. Where is the burden of proof ever on the person defending themself?
If the laws and case laws show it's Federally accepted that you can't copyright Governmental stuff like Awards, then it's the same for States unless otherwise specifically noted, which for Texas it is not.
This award was created by Texas Law. You cannot copyright a law. You cannot copyright any part of the law. The text was taken directly from the law.
TheNathanMuirWhere is the burden of proof ever on the person defending themself? on Wikipedia, for one. See WP:BURDEN. But that is not necessary, because even if the burden was on me I have provided evidence that the text from the website is not eligible for commercial distribution. Eligibility for commercial distribution is a requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to disprove the assertion that it is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. You are getting very close to an "I didn't hear that" block. HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of words for saying nothing. I don't think you understand how the laws in the U.S work. If there is no specific law banning or allowing something at a local, county or state level, it falls on established Federal guidelines.
Federal Guidelines in this case state that Government Work (Such as Awards, Laws, Etc) are Public Domain and thus cannot be copyrighted. The State follows the Federal law in this case because there is no State laws stating otherwise. It's not a abstract or complex issue here. You're saying that it's copyrighted (which it's not). There are plenty of other awards on here from Texas that have had no issues (cite: Awards and decorations of the Texas government#Public Safety Office). Furthermore there are no issues on Military awards either (cite: Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces). Wikimedia Commons also establishes that works produced by the government are Public domain, hence the massive amount of images of Government Works.
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law takes precedence over state and local laws. This principle is supported by:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Affirmed that federal laws have supremacy over conflicting state laws.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Reinforced federal authority over interstate commerce, highlighting federal preeminence.
Supremacy Clause: Directly states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land." These provisions ensure that in the absence of local laws, federal laws apply.
The text I wrote for the award was from and per the Law (Texas Government Code, Title 4, Subtitle B, Chapter 3106)
You legally cannot copyright a law, or most Government Works.
It's public information and public records. Since this Award was created by law it would fall under Wheaton V. Peters (1834) [The U.S. Supreme Court case Wheaton v. Peters (1834) established that no one can claim a copyright in laws or judicial opinions.]
Under Title 17, Section 105 of the United States Code, it is stated that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government." This is often interpreted to mean that federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and other official documents are not eligible for copyright protection.
Texas state law reflects this general principle. Texas Government Code Section 552.002 defines public information, which includes information that is written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by a governmental body. This ensures that such information, including laws, is public and accessible.
Banks v. Manchester (1888): Reinforced that judicial opinions, which are government-created, are public domain. This principle extends to other government works.
Now again, I have proven my side consistently, please explain your side without tagging a useless page that has no merit on this discussion. TheNathanMuir (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheNathanMuir: I referenced WP:BURDEN because you asked where in the world the burden is on the defendant. I provided such an example. I agree you have met that burden in this case. I was just providing an example in which the burden is on the "accused".In general, text of statues is not copyrighted. However, the website is not a statue. You can include things like the official qualifications which are defined in a statue. (However, they need to be enclosed in quotes or otherwise indicated that it is copying from a public domain source. This is not a legal requirement; it is "only" a Wikipedia rule. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources.) But things that are not statutory text, such as the blurb from the website explaining what the award is, are subject to copyright. Read the statue: it is very clear that it applied to works of the US government, not the governments of individual states (including Texas). And again: that website says it does not authorize commercial use. Either that website is lying or it cannot be used on Wikipedia. HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text from the site, was from the law. Almost verbatim. So again, how is that plagiarism. Again, the above laws/case laws/citations show that the State cannot copyright things belonging to public domain. So it's doubled down that it's not plagiarism or copyrighted. If it was plagiarized, there would need to be a victim. The State of Texas (SOT) cannot be the victim, because they cannot copyright. The person who wrote it (A government official/employee) cannot be the victim when creating work in official capacity unless explicitly stated (rare occurrence, and it would have to be provided that it was copyrighted), because they are the Government (belonging to), and therefor cannot copyright the writing of the site, belonging to the state, in official capacity for the state. Third, it came directly from the law which; cannot be copyrighted, so again what was plagiarized and who did I plagiarize? As stated this isn't abstract. This isn't complex.
If the content was Third Party content (such as Images taken by Contractors, News Organizations, Etc), or Trademarked (such as "U.S. Army Branch Insignia") this would be different. And again as Texas law states, the website about the Award and Law would be considered Public Information, which means it's not copyrighted.
The website policies state explicitly the only things copyrighted are the Videos and Photographs:
"All photographs and videos are copyrighted and may not be used without permission. Commercial use of any reproduction of any portion of this website is strictly prohibited. The OOG respects the rights of intellectual property owners and will not intentionally infringe on those rights. If an intellectual property owner believes his or her rights have been infringed by the posting or sharing of intellectual property on an OOG website or social media page, please visit the" (Cite:https://gov.texas.gov/site-policies)
The purpose of this is because they often get their content from Third-Parties (see above how that's allowed to be Copyrighted).
The policy above is cited for this page (https://gov.texas.gov/organization/cjd/star-of-texas). Thus, there were no photographs, videos or images taken from this page only Text. The Text was taken from the law. Nullifying any copyright.
The only page I found from the State of Texas that had a copyright was www.texas.gov not the Governors/Office of the Governors page/domains ("OOG") www.gov.texas.gov. You can't use the Copyright for one domain and use it on a different page and Subdomain, especially when they belong to different organizations.
However, looking at www.texas.gov Copyright or "Legal Policy" it says:
"Texas.gov is provided for public use on computer systems located within the State of Texas and for the use and benefit of citizens of Texas. Any person choosing to use this system or seeking access to information or materials on this system is subject to Texas jurisdiction. Any dispute arising therefrom shall be decided under the laws and in the courts in Texas."
Which per the laws cited above make it all PUBLIC INFORMATION, and thus Public Domain, meaning anything produced for the state, by the state, cannot be copyrighted and is available to the public unless explicitly stated otherwise. TheNathanMuir (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNathanMuir: Let's try taking this one step at a time. I never accused you of plagiarism. I just said that if the website was able to be used on Wikipedia, we would need to put it in quotes or else indicate that it was copied from the Texas website. Wikipedia's definition of plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit. It does not matter whether the writing is copyrighted or in the public domain. It does not require there to be a victim. Can we agree on that? (And yes, I will respond to the rest of your message later. I want to make sure we can first establish some common ground.) HouseBlaster (he/they) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, pal: I don't like state governments asserting copyright over their works either, and if I had my druthers, I would tell them to pound sand. But I do not get to have my druthers, and neither do you: we get to follow the rules of this website, which are extremely clear that images are presumed to be copyrighted unless explicitly confirmed otherwise. The rules of this website are a pain in the keister. This is known to be true.
If the state of Texas has broken the law in claiming copyright over their website's contents, this needs to be taken up with them -- in an actual court of law, not a Wikipedia talk page. jp×g🗯️18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Italian Wiki?
Hi! I'm currently working on a Wikipedia page on the Ballet Like Water for Chocolate, and I got linked to a page for the same ballet in Italian Wikipedia. If I could read the page, I would use some of the information there, since it's already written and looks pretty good, but I can't verify anything since I can't speak the language. Any chance you can help me out with finding someone to work with? I tried looking around Italian Wikipedia, but since I can't read it I'm a little lost. ChappellRoanFan (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try asking individual editors at WP:EMB, which lists people who speak various languages and are willing to help translate. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 16:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @ChappellRoanFan:, are you talking about it:Like Water for Chocolate (balletto) at it-wiki? If so, you should know that for the purposes of understanding the gist of an article in a foreign language, automatic translation tecnology offers a usually good-enough translation to get the main points, although they sometimes make awful, silly, or humorous mistakes. Nevertheless, if what you want is to see what's there and might be worth adding to our article about it, tools like Google Translate, DeepL, or ChatGPT are adequate to find out. Imho, DeepL is best if you just want to paste a paragraph or two to translate them to see what they are about. If you need to read a whole article, Google Translate can do that, if you pass the url; for example, this Google translate url will translate the Italian article for you.
That said, it depends a great deal on what you want to use the translation for: if it is for background, so you can discover what subtopics mentioned in the Italian article might be worth investigating and writing up for English Wikipedia, and then going to the Italian secondary sources and translating them so you can read and summarizing their content in your own words, that is fine, you can do that. Be sure to cite the Italian sources, the same way you would cite an English cource, if you go that route.
On the other hand, if what you want to do is translate parts of the Italian Wikipedia article into English and add it to the English Wikipedia, you can do that, too (it's specifically allowed by our Terms of use) but the rules are very different. First of all, massive parts of that article, including the entire § Plot section, are entirely unsourced, and are likely original research by some editor there, so you cannot use any of that. If you want to copy over translated portions of it that are reliably sourced according to *our* rules—not their rules—then you are allowed to do that, as long as you provide a specific edit summary every time you include translated content from that article; you can find the wording to use for translation attribution at WP:TFOLWP.
Finally, if automatic translation appears to be screwing up, I speak basic Italian, and you can try asking me on my Talk page; I should at least be able to figure out if there is a screwup or not, and believe me, they do srew up, so do not believe everything you read from automatic translation; read everything with a skeptical eye. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doppelganger
Hi, HouseBlaster. You appear to have a doppelganger account (contribs) which you have used here. I believe you are not supposed to contribute with that account, and maybe you are supposed to mention it on your user page. If so, you can use this user box if you want, or a plain text mention. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned on my user page (see the "about WikiMe" section of my userboxes). In that case there was no way around using that account for those edits, because for security reasons you can only move pages to .css subpages in userspace with the account which owns the userspace. (Though any account can edit them once they are in place if they use the sanitized css content model.) It is my WP:TECHALT / WP:TESTALT, both of which permit editing, in addition to being a WP:DOPPEL account. You can also see the connection if you click on User:Houseblaster, which displays an edit notice. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 00:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Blake
you edited the article for Al Blake aka Vladimir Petrov. I knew Al, he was a local here, and he passed on July 27th of this year. I'd like you to please update his article as I don't know how. Thanks! 2600:1014:B030:71DF:704A:62A8:8FBD:FBF2 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your RFA Debrief, after finding it on Pickles’ talk, and wondered if you’re familiar with Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote? Granted, your debrief is about Opposers with good reason, but it never hurts to have ammo against ones going at it backwards. MM(Give me info.)(Victories)15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with that essay, and my opinion on the essay changes like the wind. (Including while writing my response here!) The two perspectives I switch between are:
The idea is good, but it requires a lot of tact to implement without seeming sarcastic. And if it is meant to be sincere, it needs to be sincere. I don't know if I could sincerely say I was thankful for the oppose that triggered a lot of discussion, but someone else might. In other words: Good essay, just not one that would have been applicable to my situation.
It is not fair for the candidate to be responsible to police the oppose section. The candidate is going through a very stressful week; they should not have to worry about the stress of those opposing their RfA in addition. And if the response is perceived as insincere—no matter how sincere it might be—that will trigger opposes. A candidate should not feel the need to take on that burden, at best making someone else's week easier while potentially making their week that much harder. And candidate stress is a much larger problem than opposer stress. We don't have a shortage of opposers, but we do have a shortage of admins. That is not to say opposer stress is not a problem. It very much is. But it is not as large a problem as our inability to hand out more mops, and we shouldn't try to solve one problem by making a worse problem even worse. In other words: Candidates should not say "thank you" because badgering of opposes is not the candidate's problem to fix. It is up to the community to fix it.
As I click publish, I lean towards opinion 2. But as I was writing, I leaned towards opinion 1. Who knows how I will feel in five minutes. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if the response is perceived as insincere—no matter how sincere it might be—that will trigger opposes. Ah, the inability for vital signs / body language to come across in text. I know it well in my work.
but we do have a shortage of admins.
The community’s got tighter and tighter on what they’ll let slip, as time’s gone on. There’s also that you either die a hero (well, vanish), or live long enough to see yourself become the villain, on here. Your flaws as a human being get called to ArbCom, and that’s the end of your road, because, as an admin, you’re supposed to not make mistakes. Betacommand, Fram and BrownHairedGirl immediately spring to mind on that (although Fram’s a bit of a red herring, getting off lighter, given what triggered his ARB case) Guess you pretty much already said what I just said, it is not as large a problem as our inability to hand out more mops,
I don’t see myself ever going for the mop. I’m not smart enough. Only place I can really stand is with the gnomes.
I’ve forgotten where I was going with this, so I’ll shut up, and say that your answer made me nod my head in approval, so thank you for taking the time, and for a good answer.
Thank you for both your response and the cookie! (I made one major-in-meaning/small-in-byte-change edit: "with" became "without", which of course drastically changes the meaning of the sentence but I think you got the point I was trying to get across.) HouseBlaster (he/they) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be autoconfirmed to create an article (in your case, you meet the time requirement, so you just need to make 10 edits). In the meantime, you can check out this guide which explains how you can create a draft in "draftspace" and then request an experienced editor publish it for you. However, I will warn you that creating an article is one of the hardest tasks there is on Wikipedia. I would strongly encourage you to wait until you have made around 100 edits before trying. (And if that sounds like a lot, I can assure you that making 100 edits is much easier than creating an article!) HouseBlaster (he/they) 12:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Maxludi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing to do is gather reliable sources on the subject. Next, you summarize what they say. (A very common mistake people make is writing an article "backwards", where they write what they remember about the topic and then find reliable sources to support what they wrote. This is significantly harder than starting with the sources and then writing.) Using the VisualEditor is recommended for newer contributors, because its interface is more familiar (it works like Google Docs). We have an introductory tutorial to editing with the VisualEditor. Let me know if you have any other questions, HouseBlaster (he/they) 15:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HouseBlaster. I'll work on this. If I get together responsible sources Which suggest the existing entry is insccurate or insufficient, do I send you what I've got & you take it from there? (I haven't looked at the tutorial material yet, so forgive me if my answer lies there.) 121.79.251.221 (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, make sure you are logged in to your account :)
Once you have the sources, you get to do the corrections. The tutorial won't tell you that, but it will tell you how to make those changes. Best, HouseBlaster (he/they) 12:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quiet place away from the main action
I just wanted to say to all of you, in a quiet place away from the main action, what a pleasure it has been collaborating with all of you on the Help page. I learned a lot, had a lot of fun, and was impressed with the quality of cooperation and the crowd-sourced improvements we managed to come up with; the whole was truly greater than the sum of the parts. I also got to know some of you better, or for the first time. Count me in next time there's an interesting project like this one. (But not right away; I need a breather to think about other things for a little while! ) Happy editing! Adding @Folly Mox, S0091, and Joe Roe:. Mathglot (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And thank you Mathglot in particular: you had the most authorship of the new draft, and while I have learned that statistic can be misleading, I think it is meaningful in this case. But to everyone: Thank you, thank you, thank you. HouseBlaster (he/they) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back atcha Mathglot and everyone else. I did so little compared to you and the others that I am not sure I should be included but appreciate it. S0091 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Mathglot for the kind words and all the help, and thanks everyone else pinged for a really smooth and productive collaboration! I think we did a really good job on a very important piece of guidance. It was delightful working with a smol group of editors with a shared vision, little attachment to personal preferences, and willingness not to get bogged down in process. One might almost come away with the impression we've been doing this Wikipedia thing for awhile now 😉 Folly Mox (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so this closed and the only reason I knew about it was because it closed and groups I was following came up on my watchlist. I understand the rational of the perfectly good close but there were only two deletes and one of the said to delete it "until if and when Wikipedia has an article with any real analysis specifically around female-fronted musical groups." Well one of the bands I follow judiciously is The Motels. That band is the definition of the term "Female-fronted musical groups" and perhaps that delete would change their mind? It has always been a band with a lead female singer surrounded by four guys playing keyboard, bass, lead guitar, and drums. many incarnations of the band but always the same lead singer, Martha Davis. She is the only lead singer on every song they ever played. She writes all the songs herself. They have had #1 hits. They have been playing since 1976 and still play today with Martha still writing and singing. I understand that Fleetwood Mac should not be in this category (I agree), but there are bands who deserve it and I never saw this listed. Could it be reopened so I can state this case? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another I just thought of... The Pretenders. Chrissie Hynde was the only lead singer, formed the band, managed the band, wrote most of the songs for the band, and is the only continual member. They also still play. I feel certain that had I been able to mention these things those deletes would change their minds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on mobile now, so I am not going to attempt to reopen it, but I am happy to reopen it to let you state your case. I will do that when I get to my computer in ~8.5 hours. HouseBlaster (he/they) 12:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
I want to keep working on it. I've asked the folks at Wikiproject:Beer to evaluate it; and am thinking about modeling an expansion based on today's FA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackrocks_Brewery. But I was wondering if you would have suggestions or ideas for me.
@MentholFlavoredOreo: The only thing I can see is a little bit of promotional language that could be removed (for instance, we probably shouldn't say that it is a "leading" bear company; that sounds like some corporate marketing speak). So cleaning that up would be helpful :) Let me know if you have any other questions, HouseBlaster (he/they) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Do I need permission to make edits in your userspace? I'd like to add all the templates and adjust it to fit The Signpost style. Svampesky (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the talk page stalkers that this was concerning an email; I gave permission to use User:HouseBlaster/RfA debrief for The Signpost. Go ahead with whatever formatting edits you think need to be made :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 22:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. I'll leave the rest to JPxG for approval. The submission discussion is here. I've committed to copyediting another piece for the next issue, but some of the feedback might be relevant, like avoiding the use of green quotes in favour of "standard quotation marks". Svampesky (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: I can see on your user page that you're going away. If that means you're not going to be logging in to Wikipedia, email me with any edit requests about the piece and I'll action them. (If I'm even allowed to do that.) I'll disclose it in the edit summaries. Svampesky (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: I will log on to Wikipedia from my phone from time to time, but I am normally a desktop editor and my skill at editing from my phone is limited (and who knows what the Wi-Fi will be like). So I will try, but I will fall back on email if need be. Thank you for your help :) HouseBlaster (he/they) 23:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. I just need a short summary of your RfA for the 'blurb'. I think with these type of Signposts, every single aspect of content should come from the author. Svampesky (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this isn't too much trouble, but just a heads-up, a blurb usually has a bit more information about the content (and not just rewriting the title). I can give you some options if you're struggling: Content criticism was expected, bureaucratic opposes were surprising, but was supported by great nominators. And that comment.. But not always, for example it can be: It was stressful.. But it is your debrief, so you should have full editorial control over it. Svampesky (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell I have never done this before... I have chosen to emphasize a call to action (or, in this case, call to avoid taking action) against superlative questions. HouseBlaster (he/they) 02:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: I'll repeat what I said on the submissions page, as you'll probably see your user talk page first: this is your debrief. It currently sits in my sandbox, so I'll add it to the report if you're okay with it. I also think it would be best if it was added by a copyeditor and not by yourself. So I'll add it to the report if you approveSvampesky (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Done. HouseBlaster (he/they) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
) Happy editing! Adding @Folly Mox, S0091, and Joe Roe:. Mathglot (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Isabelle Belato
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Technical news
Arbitration
Recent Comments