User talk:Sleath56

Archives

I

This user participates in
WikiProject Greece.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant omissions in edit summaries

I'm concerned that you have been making edits with undescriptive edit summaries. They often add a large amount of text, but also remove well-sourced content (specifically, content unwelcome to the People's Republic of China), and the latter fact is not mentioned in the edit summaries. For instance, removing content on Ai Weiwei with the edit comment "Expand and revise", and removing information about the use of the song "Mo li hua" in antigovernment protests with the edit comment "Revise and expand", and removing imagery and captions on Hellenistic influence on areas that are now in Xinjiang Province from the Hellenistic Period article with the edit comment "Add citations". This is not an exhaustive list.

Your edit summaries must accurately reflect your edits. Not mentioning significant alterations to article content is unacceptable. It hinders proper peer review of your work. I will manually request peer review of your edits to try and make up this deficiency, but please make sure that your edits summaries are accurate and complete in future. HLHJ (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Sleath56. Could we discuss this? I'm curious as to why you were making these edits. HLHJ (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: I am still catching up on things, but I don't believe there would be anything fruitful to discuss if the intent, as I've appeared discover when meaning to reply on your Talk, is to cast aspersions. Appreciate the welcome, however. Sleath56 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I initially said on my talk is a paraphrased subset of what I said in the first post of this section (your link is to an edit in which I shorten my own initial talk post to refer strictly to the content, without mentioning an editor). I believe both are an accurate factual description of your editing. I've provided some example links above and could provide more. Please let me know if I've said something inaccurate.

I have not speculated on why you have been making this sort of edit; I'm asking you directly. Could you please tell me why have you been removing well-sourced content the Chinese government is known to dislike, without giving reasons or making it clear that you are removing this content? HLHJ (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: If you believe a fellow editor to have come into contravention of some proper editorial policy, the decent recourse is not to obliquely cast WP:ASPERSIONS nor to commit to talking about that editor in the third-person on your own Talk to someone else nor to repeat pressing that editor with plainly leading questions, but to bring it to the only proper forum for such allegations, which is AN/I. Sleath56 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors are generally expected to try to discuss matters directly and sort it out themselves before going to AN/I; if you feel that there is no hope of resolving it through discussion, then of course you can bring it to that forum. WP:ASPERSIONS says "without evidence"; I have presented evidence. If you think my generalizations from the evidence (identifying patterns in the edit content, size and summaries, and political position) are inaccurate, please say so. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: One-to-one discussions are an encouraged form of editorial communication but the manner of contact is equally primary. Feel free to correct me, as I have been away, but you immediately first contacted me with the aspersions above, then continued those allegations on perceived editorial behavior on various WikiProjects through reference in the third-person. This is a clear line. If you believe an editor to have come into contravention of editorial policy, it is a serious circumstance, if such allegations are founded. It is, simply put, then your obligation as a fellow editor to use the established forums for such means to defend Wikipedia's integrity against such perceived contraventions. There is no "middle Goldilocks soup" to choose where an editor can cast WP:ASPERSIONS and yet not feel compelled to bring such matters to AN/I. If you believe WP:ASPERSIONS are warranted and that you perceive you have the evidence to sustain it, the matter is severe enough that you are simply obligated to bring the matter to AN/I.

Through that, the immediate reliance on WP:ASPERSIONS and the abandonment of WP:AGF through your manner of first contact makes direct discussion appear unfruitful as I see it. If you would prefer to refer to specific concerns regarding one or more of my edits in particular through a constructive manner that WP:AGF, you are entirely invited to do so either here or through a 3O process. If you prefer to continue casting aspersions and perceive you are warranted in doing so, the proper forum is AN/I. Sleath56 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith here means assuming that you messed up, not that you are deliberately contravening policy. I've advised you on how to make good edit summaries, and I've tried to clean up after your problematic edits, which I do not have the expertise (or, frankly, time) to do alone, so I also posted to the relevant Wikiprojects, now months ago. All of this was done on the assumptions that you are editing from a controversial point of view and failing to write informative edit summaries (things good-faith editors often do). I welcome any explanation; if I know the reasons for your actions, I'll be able to respond better.

If you'd like a third-party opinion, perhaps Piotrus would oblige? I'd like to discuss how to make good edit summaries; I've listed some specific concerns below. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ Just wondering why I was randomly(?) pinged? I'd like to help, sure, but I am very busy today and for the next week or two, I can help mediate but maybe in few days? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Sleath56, I am concerned that you have not responded substantively to these issues. Since replying to me, you've continued making very similar edits. For instance:

The first edit you made after replying to me had the edit comment "Standardized infobox"; a more informative summary would have been something like "template swap, Shenzhou 17 photo moved up". Unfortunately, the mix of square and oblong photos meant that this rearrangement created a lot of gaps. You also slightly borked the formatting, so the photo you moved disappeared entirely. I've fixed the missing image and reduced the gaps; I see you've since replaced an image and eliminated the gaps.
You've made a large number of edits with the summary "Hyperlink redirect fix", for which a more accurate summary would be '"Russian Manchuria" -> "Outer Manchuria"', followed by "per [link to discussion or style manual]" or "because [reason]". There is a difference between the area that is under Russian control, which has fluctuated over history, and the area which is further from the Chinese Central Plain.
"Rephrase" is not an appropriate edit summary when you've also significantly changed the meaning. The original speaks of criticism by "Chinese media commentators in Hong Kong, Taiwan and overseas that are outside the control of the mainland Chinese government" (in 2008, Hong Kong had substantially greater press freedoms); your edit described criticism by "Chinese media commentators in Hong Kong, Taiwan and along with Overseas Chinese groups outside mainland China". "Overseas Chinese" is a loaded geopolitical term that many of the people so designated strongly object to, and while the grammar is a bit wonky, it seems you've implied that Taiwan is inside mainland China, which is an controversial issue most Taiwanese have strong opinions about.

For clarity, an edit summary should make it clear what changes have been made to the content. This is especially important if the content is politically contentious. Everyone has poor or missing edit summaries occasionally, but yours are consistently too vague, or focussed on the technical issues to the exclusion of the content. If an edit you make changes the content, please avoid giving the impression that it has made no changes to the content. HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: I was rather hoping that you would have provided concerns that are of significant grounds that merited the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS.

To address your comments on those cited recent edits: The first is semantics by any reasonable grounds. The second is descriptive of the action taken, a redirection of the hyperlinked article to the actual title. If you wish to discuss the specifics or accuracy of the term, you are encouraged to initiate a RM. The third is a bizarre comment and changing "overseas" to "Overseas Chinese groups" is a valid equivalency by any reasonable means. If you personally believe there is a loaded connotation associated with that term, I am not aware of it and neither is the Overseas Chinese page for that matter, which also uses them interchangeably.

I would have to say I fail to see how either amending an infobox image, updating RM-amended redirects and clarifying equivalent phrasing so to link to the Wikipedia article in question are representative of politically contentious topics. It appears to me as if much of these concerns derive from an overly sweeping conception of what merits as "politically contentious." A glance at your contribs show edit summaries that for the large part are no more descriptive than my own. If you believe my definition edit summaries warrant amendment, that is one matter which I invite feedback on; if you would use this as an opportunity to cast aspersions, that is another matter entirely. This appears to be an issue with many of your concerns regarding the edits at discussion, now that I am going through your "peer review" to my edits:

Restored an image box at Hellenistic period I took out in my revision of that page because the original editor who added it in was sanctioned explicitly for excessive image additions to articles and given an image and topic ban specifically for this behavior at AN/I, which can be seen here where it was slapped on at top of the article divorced from any connection to the neighboring passages. You asserted on Wikiprojects that this was because it was connected to the subjects of "Xinjiang" and "ethnic groups," which is quite an opportunistic leap and completely strikes against WP:AGF.

Reverted a top image update at LEED, I assume, to be charitable to your viewpoint, because the original picture was Taipei 101 and I changed it to the Shanghai Tower. This was because the original infobox was "Taipei 101 is one of the tallest buildings to be LEED-certified" and thus I updated it, as the top image, to the tallest LEED certified building, citing "Shanghai Tower is the tallest building in the world to be LEED-certified since 2015 and the third tallest building in the world overall." You reverted it back to Taipei 101 without restoring the original infobox text, writing instead "Taipei 101 has gotten LEED Platinum certification three times".

Additionally, I would refer you to read the opening sentence of WP:AGF, which defines the policy as meaning "assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it." If you perceive qualities of an editor's edit summaries to be a problematic source, it is no channel to directly resort to immediately cast aspersions in your first communications with the editor of concern and I would return that your perceived practice of reverting another editor's edits but writing anew the "undone" edits in your own language merits reciprocal concern. Sleath56 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think poor edit summaries harmful; I'm not assuming that you do them deliberately. I'm not sure I quite understand you about writing anew, sorry; can you give an example?

The Hellenistic image added by the banned editor was functionally equivalent to the very similar old photo it replaced (the editor was sanctioned for over-inserting images they themselves had contributed everywhere). The similar old photo and the other image you removed had been in the article for many years; Pericles of Athens had added them with an excellent edit summary in 2016. "Add citations" was not an appropriate edit summary for an edit which removed these images; you did add citations, but you also removed content.

I said on the Wikiprojects only that "historic domestic ethnic diversity" was "stuff the PRC doesn't like". Clarifying that I mean recent official People's Republic of China government policy, I stand by that statement and can source it. Here are links to the posts on Wikiprojects:

Removing well-cited content mentioning Ai Weiwei and protest use of Mo li hua with "Expand and revise" comments is also inappropriate, because it does not give a good idea of what you did, nor provide a reason for the edit. Re-ordering photos with the comment "Standardized infobox" ignores the content change.

"Hyperlink redirect fix" to me implies that the existing link was broken, not that it linked to a redirect, which is perfectly acceptable. You are not systematically changing all wikilinks to point directly; you are changing one particular wikilink name only, so you should specify. I don't think Talk:Outer Manchuria#Requested move 15 August 2023 was a consensus to replace every occurrence of "Russian Manchuria" with "Outer Manchuria" across the wiki (actually, ignoring IPs, that !vote was tied; not a strong consensus).

I do not think that "Chinese media commentators... overseas" is the same as "Overseas Chinese groups". The article says that the term "overseas Chinese" is "used to disseminate, reinforce, and perpetuate a monolithic and essentialist Chinese identity", which implies to me that it is loaded. Implications that Taiwan is not overseas are more loaded, though.

You swapped the lede image of LEED with the comment "Infobox image update", but the article does not have an infobox and you replaced a 2015 image with another 2015 image that was already in the article body. I didn't revert, just moved the Shanghai Tower image lower down the page, and I corrected "third tallest" to "second tallest", adding an {{asof|lc=yes|2021}}, presumably per the source. My edit comment "replaced image removed in update; both images were 2015 [1]. REorder" was a bit ambiguous, as "replaced" meant "put it back", not "put it back and removed the other one". And then I noticed that your "Infobox image update" edit had put two copies of the image in the article, so I removed one with the comment "wai, there was already an image of tht building in the article", which was badly typed, but clear.

My edit summaries are indeed often no more descriptive than yours, but when I say "expand" or "add citations", the edits are generally what they say on the tin. I try not to omit any significant changes from the summary, and I try to make it so someone scrolling through the history to find out who did that can find the edit by description. I emphasize things I think might be controversial. I don't say I never mess up, nor do I expect your summaries to be perfect. I'm concerned that your summaries consistently don't reflect the substantive changes you've made.

One major problem is that your content removals are hard to identify as content removals, because they are combined with additions of content in the same edit. Many editors look for an edit by scanning histories for red or green character counts of an appropriate size. I strongly suggest that you split up your edits, and make content removals separate from unrelated content additions. I also suggest splitting edits making purely technical changes (like swapping one template for another without changing the content) from all alterations of content. HLHJ (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your sources

Can you add a source to the use of this song in a game? You added the unreferenced claim here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The policy as I recall is to cite an official release of the song or its coverage in an RS. I've found the former in an official release of the game's complete soundtrack here, but someone else may need to add it as I am currently in Talk on that page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqJFVg05b8Q Sleath56 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY source is better than no source; independent are always best. I am not sure I understand why you cannot add the reference yourself? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means add the citation, why not? HLHJ (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]