Jump to content

User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Ocracoke

[edit]

Not sure if this will help you with your research, but I thought I would point this out to you Blackbeard#Last battle. It has several sources. I may do more research myself in the future if I can get around to it. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vescovo Personal Information

[edit]

How did the source not verify the changes? I have checked it up against court documents. I'm very confused here. TimothyImholt (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents can't be used, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Using only the Legal.ng source doesn't verify what you added, see my reply[1] to your comments on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested,

I'm preparing to open an RfC regarding the widespread use of a little-known review aggregator in music articles, and I wanted to ask your advice on where the discussion best belongs. The aggregator in question, AnyDecentMusic?[2], is obscure (its article was deleted for failing notability) and has been cited in maybe two WP:RS articles ever[3][4]. I'm unsure whether this RfC belongs on WP:RSN or the WikiProject Albums talk page. You participated in the book aggregator consensus at MOS:NOVELS where, similarly, it was a matter of due weight rather than reliability in the traditional RSN sense since an aggregator isn't reporting facts, but publishing its own subjective synthesis of subjective reviews. Some users in that discussion were adamant that RSN was the only appropriate avenue. I wanted to pre-empt such concerns. Thanks in advance for your help. Οἶδα (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you first start a normal discussion, rather than a formal RFC, on WikiProject Albums. Musical sources are an odd bunch, and expertise in the area can be very important. Also WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Aggregates is a project level concensus. The last discussion there appears to be WT:WikiProject Albums/Archive 78#AnyDecentMusic? reliability, I would suggest reading that first just so you don't repeat questions that have already been answered. If after discussion you still believe that a RFC is necessary then either RSN or Project Albums would be an appropriate venue, I would just suggest notifying the other. So if the RFC is at the project then notify RSN, and vice versa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through all the previous discussions I could find, and have linked to and analyzed them in the RfC rationale I drafted over the last few days. I had participated in the last discussion, the one to which you linked, where the general takeaway was that editors shouldn't be removing the aggregator without consensus on its reliability because notability (the reason AnyDecentMusic? was deleted) is different from reliability. I myself voted to not restrict its usage given the lack of consensus. The project-level consensus was in 2016 in the form of an RfC (Template_talk:Music_ratings/Archive_2#Add_AnyDecentMusic?_to_aggregate_reviewers_option?) which added the aggregator to the {{Music ratings}} template. One of my main arguments is pushing back against the 2016 template-level consensus as having inadequately investigated the source's "reliability". And considering the last normal discussion, which originated from an editing dispute, already resulted in users recognizing the need for a wider reliability discussion, I wasn't planning on opening another normal discussion. Much of my rationale is similar to the points previously raised at MOS:NOVELS. Meaning the discussion is nuanced and time-consuming, which is why I believe an RfC is the appropriate avenue. But I'm unsure between RSN and WikiProject Albums. Does it make any difference? I'm inclined to avoid RSN (but still advertise it there) because the issue pertains more to WP:WEIGHT rather than "reliability" in the traditional RSN sense. Cheers! Οἶδα (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that if the RFC is about more than just straight reliability then WikiProject Albums is the more appropriate forum. Do notify RSN, I'll be interested to see what comes of the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing typo, I think

[edit]

In you comment on the discussion of the closing of the discussion of the article on the killing of a football player (in the house that jack built), I think there's a typo. I think where you wrote "sort", you meant "sought", but am also not 100% certain of that, and if it's confusing me, it may be confusing others. Even if it isn't a typo, you may wish to clarify your point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's one of many typos today. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more comments to clarify what I'm trying to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think now it's clear. (I'm making a lot of typos myself these days; hopefully I catch the ones that make things nuclear... I mean, unclear.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes my thumbs type faster than my keyboard can react and autocorrect takes over, or maybe they're just getting fat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The invention of the smartphone has been a great thing for mankind and a horrible thing for the Internet. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement suggestion

[edit]

Hello @ActivelyDisinterested. Your article is a great start! To make it even better, consider adding more references to reliable sources. This helps verify the information and improves the article's quality. Check out this Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for more details. USMANEJIGA (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, ActivelyDisinterested. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ActivelyDisinterested&oldid=1319654877"