This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please inspect these portals, report problems or suggest improvements at
WT:WPPORTD
, or develop them further (see below). Thank you.
What's next?
There is still lots to do...
There are many subject gaps that need to be filled. This can be done by creating new portals, or by adding Selected article sections to existing portals. To create a new portal, simply place {{subst:Basic portal start page}} on an empty portal page, and click "Preview". If the portal is complete, click "Save". After you try it, come share your experience and excitement at
WT:WPPORTD
.
Each new portal is just a starting point. Each portal of the new design can be further developed by:
refining the search parameters to improve the results displayed in the Did you know and In the news sections.
adding more specific Selected articles sections, like Selected biographies.
inserting a Recognized content section.
adding more pictures to the image slideshow.
placing a panoramic picture at the top of the intro section (especially for geographic portals).
Besides the new portals, there are still about 1200 portals of the old design that need to be converted to the new design.
Many portals need to be de-orphaned, by placing links to them (in the See also section of the corresponding root articles, at the bottom of the corresponding navigation footer templates, and on the corresponding category pages).
Many of the new portals still need to be listed at
Portal:Contents/Portals
.
Bugs keep popping up in portals. These need to be tracked down and reported at
WT:WPPORTD
.
Tools are needed to make developing and maintaining portals quicker and easier.
Dreaming up new features and capabilities. Innovation needs to continue, to design the portal of tomorrow, and the portal development-maintenance-system of the future. Automation!
So, if you find yourself with a little (or a lot) of free time, pick an area (or more) above and...
Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:
He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.
Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.
The conversion continues
Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.
One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.
This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.
Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.
This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.
Going wide...
We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.
We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...
Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:
Using both maxheight=120px and overflow=Hidden produces this:
Project's status
There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.
Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at
Portal:Contents/Portals
.
Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.
Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.
Until next issue...
See ya round the portal system! — The Transhumanist 11:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, DavidCane. Voting in the
2018 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or
{{subst:bpsp}} )
Happy Holidays
Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the above list was generated using
this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).
Last issue, I mentioned there would be a flood, and so, here it is...
Portals status
We now have 4,620 portals.
And the race to pass 5,000 by year's end is on...
Can we make it?
The New Year, and the 5,001st portal, await.
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}} or
{{subst:bpsp}} )
Evad is back!
After disappearing in mid-thread, Evad37 has returned from a longer than expected wikibreak.
Be sure to welcome him back.
Improved cropping is coming to Portal image banner
User:FR30799386 is working on making {{Portal image banner}} even better by enabling it to chop the top off an image as well as the bottom.
Many pictures aren't suitable for banners because they are too tall. Therefor, User:FR30799386 added cropping to this template, so that an editor could specify part of a picture to be used rather than the whole thing.
Upgrade of flagship portals is underway
Work has begun on upgrading Wikipedia's flagship portals (those listed at the top of the
Work continues on the other five. Feel free to join in on the fun.
Spotting missing portals that are redirects
In place of many missing portals, there is a redirect that leads to "the next best topic", such as a parent topic.
Most of these were created before we had the tools to easily create portals (they used to take 6 hours or more to create, because it was all done manually). Rather than leave a portal link red, some editors thought it was best that those titles led somewhere.
The subjects that have sufficient coverage should have their own portals rather than a redirect to some other subject.
Unfortunately, being blue like all other live links, redirects are harder to spot than redlinks.
User:FR30799386 has pulled it off, and made the upgrade to {{Portal image banner}}...
So, this:
Niagara falls
, from the Canadian side
Becomes this:
Niagara falls
, from the Canadian side
Here's the code for the above banner:
{{Portal image banner|File:American Falls from Canadian side in winter.jpg | [[Niagara falls]], from the Canadian side |maxheight=175px |overflow=Hidden|croptop=10}}
...there is plenty else to do in addition to building new portals:
The new portals need to be linked to from the encyclopedia.
On those portals about subjects that are not typically capitalized, the search parameters need to be refined/expanded, to maximize the chances of Did you know and In the news items being found and displayed.
A Recognized content section needs to be added to each portal that has a corresponding WikiProject.
Addition of a category on those portals that lack a subject category.
Implement the portal category system, adding the appropriate categories to each portal.
Upgrade, and complete (as per the tasks enumerated above), the old-style portals that are not regularly maintained, which have not been converted yet (about 1,100 of them).
Find and fix the remaining bugs in the underlying lua modules.
Build portal tools (scripts) to assist in the creation, development, and maintenance of portals.
Build a script to help build navbox footer templates, via the harvesting of categories, amongst other methods.
Update the portal building instructions.
Update the portal guideline.
Refine the programming of the portals to reduce their load time.
Design and develop the next generation of portals and portal components.
DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.
If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.
Conversion continues
There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.
As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.
What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.
Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...
Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.
That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!
NHLE}}, which I believe you created. It's incredibly useful and I wish I'd been aware of it long ago. I was wondering if there was a possibility of your creating a similar template for Cadw sites? A lot of the building articles I work on are Welsh, and it would be very helpful to have such a template. It could link to this, [1] which gives you online access to the Cadw records in a similar way to the Historic England site, although not as helpfully. I've not got a clue how time-consuming the construction of a template is, so I've no idea how big an ask this is, but it would be invaluable for Welsh architecture articles. All the very best. KJP1 (talk
) 07:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
KJP1,
Apologies, I overlooked your message amongst the deluge of WikiProject Portal stuff below. I did create the original NHLE template, though it's had plenty of input from others since then. The NHLE template uses the unique identification number of each item recorded to link to the item's page details. The Cadw site appears to use the same sort of arrangement, so a template should not be too hard to create - something like this:
DavidCane - David, absolutely no apology necessary and, yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Would it be possible to create such a template? It would be extremely useful for the work I'm doing on Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, and for anyone else working on historic buildings in Wales. Many thanks in anticipation. KJP1 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That's done. The template is at {{
National Historic Assets of Wales which points back to Cadw. The template has separate links to both, in the same way as the NHLE links the Historic England and National Heritage List for England. You might want to create a short page on the National Historic Assets of Wales in place of the redirect.--DavidCane (talk
) 23:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@KJP1: Don't know if you saw this.--DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
David - sorry, I had overlooked it. That's really helpful and thanks very much indeed. I shall start using it immediately, and let other editors interested in Welsh historic buildings know of it via the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales talkpage. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.
What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.
We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.
When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.
Get ready...
Get set...
Go!
Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered
User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.
When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.
The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:
The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down
You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).
Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!
The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...
The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...
Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.
Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.
What's next for portal pages?
There are 5 drives for portal development:
Create new portals
Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
Pageless portals
Let's take a closer look at these...
1: Creating new portals
Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.
Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.
2: Expanding existing portals
The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...
Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
Adding panoramic pics.
Categorizing portals.
More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy,
make a wish
.
3: Converting old portals
By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.
There are two approaches here:
A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...
B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.
And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.
5...
See below...
New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...
Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.
What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?
Quantum portals.
What are quantum portals?
Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.
Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:
...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...
Introducing...
Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals
(see it's talk page).
Keep on keepin' on
...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, David. I am working in my sandpit on a comprehensive overhaul of Pinero's article, and as you are an editor I admire I want to run past you a hefty cut I am proposing to make in a contribution you made ten years ago. It is the matter of the "loyalty letters", where I propose to summarise rather than quote in extenso Pinero's letter to The Times. At nearly 300 words it seems to me to take up more space than is justified in an article of (I estimate by the time I'm done) 3,000 words. But I should be glad to know you approve, or at least are willing to go along with me on this. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Tim, the adjustment is fine. The section was added when my article on Edgar Speyer was going through its second FAC.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Phew! So glad it's Ok with you. Tim riley talk 22:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
City Road - oh dear!
Hi David. Thanks for this – so it is actually gorn, is it? What a shame when I had invested so much effort in the photo! :) (During a Friday lunchtime 15 years ago.) I have not been along there for a while but on Google Streetview it looks as if it is no longer there. I quite liked the way you could still see tiny remnants of the old building in the leftover mess. And I assume you took out the bit about seeing it from trains as it was uncited (and unciteable, I am guessing)? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. I like your new map, and I hope you don't mind that I removed the pencil mark from the big building by the canal basin. If you hate it, please revert it. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I’ve added a cite from Connor that the platform walls can be seen from train windows, though that might have changed since the book is from 2001. Though I occasionally have to go to Old Street, I haven’t travelled between Old Street and Angel on the Northern line in a long time, so can’t confirm if that’s still the case. The Google 3D aerial views show the frame of the new energy centre under construction, so it may be complete by now.
Map change is great. I would have done it myself, but I need to reinstall GIMP on my PC.
Thank you very much for that. I haven't been along there above or below ground for a long time ... I used to work in Charterhouse Square but now I am close to Highbury and Islington tube. I've always been successful in knowing where York Road tube is below ground and pointing it out to politely yawning family members, but I've so far drawn a blank with City Road. One of these days perhaps. I'm glad you like the map change. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).
A follow-up note of thanks for creating the above. I hope the use we've put it to on Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire meets with approval. I think it looks rather fine and it's great to have cites for each entry. I now have to embark on the lengthier task of the Grade II*s! All the best and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Happy to help and glad to see it's being put to good use. Starting it out on list pages is probably the best way to raise awareness of its existence, so it can trickle down to individual articles from there.--DavidCane (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"Day 1979"
I saw your note here. This is the 6th (IIRC) edition of The Story of London's Underground - my local library has a copy. I can check up on this when I'm next in there. I agree that it seems unlikely that the 6th edition would mention something that the 11th doesn't. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It seemed unlikely that Day would discuss the East Coast line and electrification of the Midland Mainline as these aren't Underground matters.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the article, "one of the most interesting stations on the London Underground system having gone through three stages of development"! - Good title to begin May, a green park! I am happy to share the page with some green on the cover Der geteilte Himmel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of unused article assessment class templates for deletion
Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.
Some of the reasons for the purge are:
Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
They were mass created
Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.
In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.
Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:
Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time
These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at
WT:POG
.
However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.
See you at
WT:POG
.
Curation
A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.
There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.
See you at
WT:POG
.
Traffic
An observation and argument that arose again and again during the
WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp
}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.
And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.
The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?
And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...
Some potential future directions of development
Quantum portals?
An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.
Non-portal integrated components
Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.
What kind of features could this be done with?
The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.
Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).
The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.
Where would that leave curated portals?
Being curated. At least for the time being.
New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.
But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.
Keep on keepin' on
The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.
Just letting you know, that neutrality template simply isn't enough and the content itself should not be in the article with only a single source carrying the word 'coup' especially when the majority of editors on the talk page disagreed with the inclusion, including yourself. I know you're essentially offering a compromise with them to end the dispute but it seems pretty black and white to me. Honestly, I'm shocked that absolutely no-one involved in the discussion has actually considered contacting an administrator to help with the dispute (which has been ongoing for more than a month). However I have since done so and hope the conflict can end shortly, I don't plan on making any further contributions to the talk page for said article or the article itself, I'm going to wait for the response from administrators first. I just thought it would be helpful to notify you personally, and while I'm sure you agree with me, I'm afraid I can't agree with compromising on such a clear cut issue. In fact the article itself seems so fundamentally flawed that it might even qualify for deletion, only time will tell I guess. Anyway, I've done all I can for the conflict, good luck finding a resolution. Chieftain Tartarus(talk) 12:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree that the inclusion of Johnson's proroguing of parliament should not be included and I totally agree that this should not have gone on so long. I saw it when the note was added to the Boris Johnson talk page. Rather than be a compromise, the tagging was going to be the first step in a process - firstly to raise awareness on the article itself, as action on talk pages can go on without much notice. I was going to take it to the WPNOVN noticeboard, but lost my broadband connection for a while, so didn't get to that stage. After the tag had been in place for a while, I was going to remove the whole Johnson line.
Sceptre clearly has a POV over this, but cannot grasp that a couple of random headlines cannot be used as a prop to support the claim that they are making. Looking at their twitter feed (linked on their user page), they clearly have strong political opinions that mean they are not able to see clearly what the reality is in this situation. As a long time user, Sceptre, I'm sure understands the limitations on discourse on Wikipedia, but they were coming close to being abusive. Like a lot of people heavily invested in their world view, dissenting voices are perceived as being personally antagonistic and a defensive barrier erected around that turns to attack when they start to lose the argument.
I see you've taken my tag off and contacted Ferret. Let's see what happens now. Fingers crossed that Sceptre sees sense.--DavidCane (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)