Jump to content

User talk:Compassionate727/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


NPP drive award

The Invisible Barnstar
This award is given to Compassionate727 for 5 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions.. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Midwest Food Bank

Thanks so much for attending the editathon at IUPUI last week, and for helping out others that were there! We are planning future events and hope you will be able to make it back. I saw the article you wrote, and it looks like it already meets WP:DYK criteria. I'd love to see it get on the main page! The 7-day window for eligibility would expire tomorrow, if you are interested in nominating. I'm happy to help if you've never done it before. Dominic·t 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic: Sorry, I should have responded to this sooner. As you can see, I nominated it for DYK per your request, though it's on hold while I continue to develop it. Regarding the edit-a-thons, as I mentioned, I will be in Michigan starting tomorrow through the end of the school year in May, so I won't be able to attend anything until then, with the possible exception of winter break, but I hope to be more involved after that! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I just saw the DYK. Excellent work Compassionate727! Hope all goes well in Michigan and hope to see you again. --Jaireeodell (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Compassionate727,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Article for deletion on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI

I noticed while doing some unrelated cleanup that the edits you made to University of Putra Malaysia to remove copyright violations were reverted - see Talk:University of Putra Malaysia#Please don't simply revert the article to older version. I've restored your version, but figured you should be aware. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: Ooh, yes, I hadn't noticed. I really ought to clear out my watchlist… and then use it more effectively. Thanks for the heads up! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Compassionate727,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anfal campaign on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Boro people on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Midwest Food Bank

On 5 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Midwest Food Bank, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a two-year-old food bank contributed 150 semi-trucks of supplies to relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Midwest Food Bank. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Midwest Food Bank), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lavender oil on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for modeling many great values

Thanks for closing out the RFC over at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and for adding a thoughtful follow-up when a dispute remained. Your edits embody so many values that I strive toward myself: they were well-written, they showed patience, and they demonstrated great ability to parse a lot of discussion and generate a succinct yet definitive summary. That was truly inspiring to a new editor. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist: Well, I don't really know how to respond to this. I'm flattered, thank you! And welcome to the project; there's quite a learning curve, but you'll learn how to negotiate it with time, and I look forward to watching it happen! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that discussion over at ANB is really getting heated. Lots of opinions from lots of editors. I wanted to let you know that after reading pretty much all of it, I still think your close was fundamentally right. Though I think El C said it best here; while the close was right in its interpretation of not only !votes but of the strength of arguments, it seems a bit too short in comparison to the length of the RFC. It truly seemed to me in my first reading of your close that you had, in all likelihood, considered many factors in your judgement - such as WP:AGEMATTERS, strength of arguments, prevalence in reliable sources, and general sensibility regarding respecting RFC consensus (regarding the addition of new WP:WEASEL words post-close). Though, on subsequent reviews, not much of that was explicitly stated... so a literal interpretation makes it seem like a potentially insubstantial close.
Just wanted to leave you some words of (what I hope are) encouragement. I don't think your close was bad, despite what some experienced editors and admins have said. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@PhotogenicScientist: Well, it's a complicated issue, certainly more complicated than I had initially reckoned. For sure, a lot of this has been somewhat silly and litigious. However, Rhododendrites highlighted some salient points about the way syntax and topicality affects the degree to which a source is actually endorsing the notion that the laptop is definitely Biden's with those simple constructions. (I think: to be honest, I'm still struggling a bit to parse his source assessment. There are some where he's interpreted them differently from me and I can see why, and others where I don't. I find it quite intriguing.) Likewise, Slakr distilled the issue quite effectively; I think that the February 2022 The Guardian article saying that nobody doubts he owned it anymore, when combined with the large number of provided RS that didn't cast doubt on his ownership, is sufficient, but given Rhododendrites disagreed with me about whether or not some of those sources were casting doubt, it would seem to be a valid enough question to discuss. I had thought that even if the number of votes didn't indicate a clear consensus, enough other things favored the no's that it would be an uncontroversial close; this has certainly been an instructive lesson in both source interpretation and how nothing in AP2 is uncontroversial.
Of course, the sensible solution would be to just go with Slakr's proposal, which not only sidesteps the issue but better defines the history and scope of the controversy, which is what the first sentence of an article about a controversy should be doing anyway. But that wouldn't really please either side's partisans, so first we need to have a long argument about this as currently presented; welcome to American politics on Wikipedia. As a newcomer, I hope you haven't found this discouraging; although American politics is often like this, most of Wikipedia isn't. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop close

Hi Compassionate727, and thanks for closing the RfC at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy. I'm hoping to get some clarity on the reasoning behind your close. How did you determine that "Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Sure thing. I was mostly relying on the source list produced by Adoring nanny because relatively few people cited any sources in the survey. I found that many of the earliest sources provided in that list used some kind of qualification, but that by the end of April, most sources were consistently describing the laptop as Biden's, without qualification, CNN's effort to avoid actually commenting on the laptop's ownership not withstanding (but even they seem to implicitly accept it). Given how pronounced the trend was and how recent sources exert a controlling influence, I considered that sufficient. Of course, if there were recent sources that still described the ownership as "alleged" in their own voice, that would be highly relevant, but nobody produced any solid examples of this during the discussion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Since a close challenge was opened, I responded there. Speaking of which, please see the notice below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
And thank you for the notification. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Close review requested in AP / BLP article. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having to endure personal attacks because you closed an RFC. That topic area can be very nasty to edit in, and I commend you for having a go. I closely reviewed the “no” comments and will add a write up summarizing them tomorrow. The gist is that your close was correct. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I certainly knew this could happen eventually when I decided to feature it prominently on my userpage and wouldn't have done so if that possibility bothered me. To be honest, I'm more amused than anything (this, of all occasions, is kinda silly). At this point, I do kind of want to collapse everything but Black Kite's original comment so people don't keep wasting time arguing about it, but I probably shouldn't say "this is irrelevant" in a discussion that is already about ability (or lack thereof) to judge that accurately, so I guess they can keep squabbling. It's no skin off my back, just the participants and whoever ultimately gets to close this. Thanks for the concern, though! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
One way to put an end to the AN thread would be for you to endorse a close review. Whichever way it goes, you will have shown your interest in promoting consensus and depersonalizing the content decision. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. We are already doing a close review, and I certainly don't have a problem with that, but I don't see how hopping over and saying so would actually change anything. It's not like the process or underlying issues will change as a result. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
What's being proposed is to have a fresh close, which several have suggested would be done by an uninvolved Admin. A "second opinion" in effect, which would either validate or modify the initial close. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Unless I misunderstand, it sounds like you want me to unilaterally withdraw my closure. If it were obvious the community would overturn it, I would, but given the level of division concerning the underlying merits, I think that would confuse things and risk just kicking the discussion elsewhere. It seems better to me to let this play out on the terms it already has. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
No, not my intent. It's just like a doctor when they refer you for a second opinion from another doctor. It doesn't mean they do not believe in their own judgment, just that they recognize the value of a fresh consultation. But it was just a suggestion, do as you see fit. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Uninvolved consensus til now seems to endorse the close. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry Ernie. Everything will be fine. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
?? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My talk page, the advice column....

Is BHG threatening me? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: It can be hard to tell what constitutes a threat around here; people don't usually make explicit threats to escalate a grievance before doing so. She is certainly upset. To my knowledge, I have never interacted with her personally, but the little voice in my memory is telling me that she can be abrasive and has a reputation to that effect, although I feel nervous saying so without remembering what I read that gave me that impression, since she would (understandably) probably interpret that as an insult. It almost certainly isn't helping that you're already on the defensive because of other things. If she's making you nervous, undoing that closure like she requested would most likely put an end to it, but under the circumstances, I would be surprised if she pressed for sanctions against you and even more surprised if anything came of it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
A recent comment on the state funeral RM led me to BHG's entry on WP:EDRC. I think she's gone past her imposed borders on this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@UtherSRG: Probably, but right now, you should not block her yourself: it would look too much like an involved block. If you think it merits sanctions, I would raise it at ANI. (It probably does, but I try to stay away from the dramaboards.) I'm not sure what would happen, as the community normally has very little will to sanction editors for "ordinary incivility," but that just makes it all the more remarkable that she has a logged editing restriction for it; the community must have gotten really fed up with her at some point.
Alternatively, it should be safe for you to warn her that she crossed the line, if you'd prefer that route. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah yeah no... I wasn't asking if I should take direct action. I've asked another admin to look into it. I, too, wish to avoid the dramaboards. I feel even asking someone on ANI to look into whether BHG has crossed the line is inviting their incivility... which is probably a fair indication that they have indeed crossed that line. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
And I thought perhaps that WP:EDRC would jog your memory about where you'd heard she was abrasive... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
So yeah, I filed at ANI last night, and though I got some slight chiding for doing it by some, a large majority backed me up and Tamzin blocked her for 12 hours. Thanks for the advice to go to ANI. It looks like BHG is not going to learn from this though and will flame out. That's too bad. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@UtherSRG: Yikes. (Regarding her behavior; the ANI went rather smoothly, by ANI standards.) I've shared a couple thoughts of my own. (Redacted) [I]f the issue is really that she's consistently assuming bad faith rather than just tone-deaf, there's probably no hope she'll ever become better. I guess we'll see what she does when her block expires in a few hours. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Let's please not speculate about other editors' health. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Fair, my apologies. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Compassionate - I know you've already apologized but I just want to be clear that, for me, a pattern of such comments would be its own cause for a block. I'm not trying to beat you up for something you've already apologized for, just make note of the seriousness of the comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Yes, I realize now most people would consider such a comment a personal attack. I wasn't thinking about that when I said it, as I personally don't think about mental health issues that way; it's just a fact of life for me (and a large percentage of my extended family), and a reminder of the need to be compassionate to people we may find disagreeable. But most people don't share my perspective on the subject, and bringing it up in such a way in a setting like this was quite careless, among other things.
(Btw, feel free to revdel it if you want. I won't take offense.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

You say "Personally, I believe that when a user occasionally infringes the edges of a very broad topic ban and the edits have nothing to do with the disruption that saw them topic banned to begin with, we should ask ourselves if the topic ban perhaps isn't too onerous before we accuse them of prodding to see what they can get away with. I don't believe an editor should have to read oodles of articles out of fear of violating a topic ban while doing routine maintenance like fussing with categories." Well, that is exactly what is happening. I want to edit categories so they are not in the wrong birth category, but have no done so because someone at one point in their life was mentioned that they were a low level employee at a religious organization. I have not done so because one out of a huge body of art work ended up in a religious organization or had a religious theme. I live in constant fear of being banned, and I have little to do about it. The most recent ban put on me came out of an ANI opened against someone else for uncivil attacks on my editing. I have not yet seen anyone admit there are any limits to this topic ban. Somehow all the material in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is now considered falling under the topic ban. I have even been told that discussing the ban at all could be interpreted as a violation of the ban, so I just have to sit in fear that I may make a misstep. Since I cannot discuss the ban, I could not even talk with anyone about the best way to approach getting it lifted, what examples might be better or worse to bring up, or anything else. The fact that I do not like being forced to rescind minor edits is used against me, I am given no credit for the fact that I willingly did so. I get no credit for all the times I reversed minor edits when on further looking at the article I realized I had been in possible violation of this extremely broad topic ban. This is onerous, and I still believe it was intentionally designed to make it impossible for me to abide by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

    • On the example of the politician I brought up by name, as far as I can tell her involvement in a particular public relations campaign (which was intentionally trying to highlight people from a broad variety of walks of life who were also a member of a certain Church), and a newspaper mentioning her with regards to this is not at all as far as I can tell mentioned in the article on her. My comments with regard to editing the categories were because I was broadly reviewing certain categories, not related to religion, but related to when a person lived, and I noticed that this was a case of overappling such categories. I came upon the article by a search of those categories, not the categories by a review of the article. The way people have applied this ban I was shaking for fear after I made some edits to the article on Komaram Bheem. I did not mention this because I was afraid doing so would open it up for someone to try to propose a topic ban on the edits I made to that article just after watching RRR. I live in constant fear that the next edit I make will turn out to be a problem. There was also a time I was attacked for an edit on an article in which the article made no mention at all of the religion of the person, or any mention of the the person doing anything religious ever, but the creator of the article dug up some information not in the article to show that the person was in fact an artist who in fact had made some works their were either religious in nature or had been placed in a religious location (I cannot remember which it was) and so he was trying to get suggest that I was violating my topic ban by having made an edit on this article, even though the article only mentioned that the person had been a competitor in the Olympics Arts Competition and nothing else. However if I had mentioned that particular episode in the Administrative Noticeboard, I would have been probably threatened with more than a month of being banned from editing Wikipedia because it would have been decided that I was in violation of another topic ban on me because of the nature of the edit I actually did on the subject in question, and evidently speaking in even an oblique way to recognize that Wikipedia has certain policies and processes is not allowed for me, and if I do it I will be punished to the upmost possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am tired of falsely being accused of "testing boundaries". This is an unfair attack and is built on assuming bad faith. The case just brought up was a poet, categorized as a poet. At the time it did not even cross my mind that some poets write primarily on religious themes. I just noticed she was a poet, which is all the detail that was given in the lead as a poet. This was a legitimate mistake from not thinking how a poet categorized as a poet might also fall under the rubric of "religious leader broadly construed", it was not an attempt to avoid or test any boundary. The fact that such innocent actions are given such a negative spin to me is a sign of how this topic ban is used to poison discourse against me and further my marginalization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The way this actually functions is that it makes it so I cannot edit almost any articles on artists born before 1700, because virtually all of them created some sort of work of art that was in some way religious, at least "broadly construed", and for a poet if there is a glaring inconsistency between the listed year of birth and the categorized one, and lots of other people, I have to do a deep dive into the article to ensure there is no issue, even if the intro mentions no religion and the categories mention no religion. I would be happy if someone would at least accept "if an article has a distinct introduciton and categories, and they do not mention religion, than it is unreasonable to say that the person is a religious figure broadly construed for the purposes of categorizing and editing the introduction, with the obvious caveat that no edits done in either of those ways involve things related to religion".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Another unfair nature is when it comes up that the topic ban is so broadly construed that it takes a lot of effort to figure out what is and what is not covered by it, people do not consider if the edits that have any borderline issues are at all problematic or disruptive. No, they just say "let us figure out a way to make this more clear by making it more broad." It seems very unfair that people do not have to show that what they are complaining about is actually disruptive, and that I am punished still for actions done in August 2021, with no one being able to show any edit I have done since than that was in any way related to this topic and in any actual way disruptive or causing of the concerns that caused this topic ban to be imposed in the first place. No one at this point is producing any evidence that the topic ban issues are disruptive, except of the limits of the topic ban. None of these edits are actually disruptive to Wikipedia, but I am treated as an evil person who is trying to be disruptive because of these minor edits. While other people get to go around and being actively cruel and uncivil and I say nothing because the last time I did so it lead to an ANI and a Arbcom decision that has banned me from lots and lots of more stuff. So the lesson I learned from that is never complain about rude or uncivil remarks because doing so might get you punished. Although actually that ANI was opened by an editor I do not think I had talked to, I did unwisely contact another editor on the issue just before the ANI opened. I am tired of systems that punish victims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am now having very heavy anxiety. People are proposing a full, indefinte site ban because I even suggested lifting a topic ban. No one warned me this was even possible. I am just plain panicking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington

Bloomington
 Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons
2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option)
IUPUI

You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by Indiana Wikimedians at IUPUI University Library in downtown Indianapolis and the Herman B Wells Library at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually!

Tuesday, November 1st from 11am-4pm, at...

Visit the meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more.

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)

More thoghts, sorry if I speak too much

I just found this quote on my talk page about the topic ban. "The point of the topic ban was to stop disruption. It has done that. Now, honestly, the disruption appears to be the number of watchers looking for every reason to pile on Mr. Lambert. Even if it is done in good faith it is still a disruption to both his good faith editing and the betterment of the encyclopedia. I encourage Mr. Lambert to challenge these when they occur and force clarification. Either it is focused specifically on religion and religious figures or it is broadly construed. It cant be both broad and focused." There is also the mention of how one possible solution to issues where it was unclear or I was confused is that I can revert edits I made. Yet some people try to use the evidence of any reverts at all to push this. That advice up there seems to almost be at least readable as advice I should take something to AN. Maybe I went to far in even suggesting a end, but I think asking too much should not be grounds for deletion. I think Those two line, in relation to an issues where someone was trying to claim that I was out of line "the point of the topic ban was to stop disruption. It has done that." Are basically being ignored in the actual discussion. People are acting like changing a birth category from 1891 to 1890s because the text of the article says that the person was born in 1890, on an article that I did not even know was on someone more than just a generic poet, because the opening line was the only place in the article that gave a year at all, and that just said poet, is somehow disruptive in the extreme that it, and a connected request to overturn a topic ban, are grounds to ban me. I wish someone would point out the nature of what has been not occurred, and that these are not in and of themselves disruptive edits. However it seems a lot of the anger is directed at other things people were not able to ban me for at the time, and so they are using this as a pretext. Since at least some of those things were heard in arbcom and did not result in a siteban, that was voted down 9-3. And other places there were other discussions that chose various punishments, rehashing those things now does not make sense. This whole process is very frustrating. Most so because at this point no matter what I do with this quote I will be attacked. However since there are quotes like that posted by other editors on my talk page it really feels like I had good reason to believe that there was some feeling that some sort of change to the topic ban could be done. I will admit I did not chose the best way, but calling for me to be banned because I proposed ending the topic ban against "near unanimous opposition" is just not reasonable. Especially because the opposition came after my proposal, and the topic ban proposal itself makes it sound like the opposition proceeded my proposal. The process does not seem right. I wish I had seen that statement earlier, but I am not sure how to enter it in. The fact that others have said even vague talk about the ban itself could be considered violation of the ban makes tis difficult. Then there are the odd votes that seem to boil down to "we should ban this editor from editing Wikipedia because the last time he was banned from editing Wikipedia he admitted it was very hard on him, and it is good in the long run for us to ban people from doing things they enjoy doing so much that when we stop them from doing it." Some say "Wikipedia is not therapy", should this not apply to "Wikipedia does not ban people from editing because we think it is not good for them, just based on actually actions on Wikipedia." The only actual objection to my posting the day countdown was "this is a threat of coming back", which someone else seemed to respond to as over the top, and I really do not see any reasonable way to see this as a threat. Also, if this was really super someone should have made a motion then to A-block talkpage access and B-extend the block for x amount of time because of the disruption. Taking the proposal on now seems unfair. As does the way the banning proposal tries to use asking questions about the edges of a ban as grounds for imposing a more severe one. The reality is there is a process I did not know was under the ban, but a comment in a related discussion made me think it might be. If I had not asked about it, I would not have known for sure. I did ask a second time, but that was because at least one editor advised me to seek further clarification. I really think treating asking questions as a sign of trying to avoid something, instead of being a sign of trying to make sure you do not accidentally do something and then need to ask permission, is an unwise way to start discourse, and I really, really do not see how that is a reasonable main point in choosing to ban someone from editing Wikipedia for at least a year, with nothing making it very likely that a reverse would happen even after a year. Sorry this is so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for your good imput on the AN discussion. I have to admit I wish I could turn back the clock a week and never have opened that. I am not sure I will even trust myself to edit even a space away, even on an article I have triple read, for at least a few days. I think for the time I will focus on 1890 and moving backwards. Moving forwards from 1608 moves faster, because there are 200 give or take articles a year instead of just over 5,000, but it seems more stressful in some other ways. I am not sure what else to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou again

Thankyou for your comments on the new AN discussion. I am thinking my best course at this point is to say nothing. Do you think there is anything I can post that will improve the situation, or do you think it is best I stay away?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou

I did read through your suggestions. I have been trying to at least review the whole if not read the whole of some articles before doing any editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Compassionate727,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Floyd protests on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! In-person WikiConference North America Meetup in Indianapolis!

 Nov. 11-13: WikiConference North American Meetup!
IUPUI University Library (and around Indianapolis)

Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals).

Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized.

Visit the WikiConference North America site for the schedule and visit our meetup page to sign up and learn more. And don't forget to register for the conference!

—From the Wikimedia Indiana team!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC).)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:AFL on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nizar Hassan article

Hi there. Last month, you reviewed the article Nizar Hassan, and for that thanks a lot! I would like to ask you something else, if it's ok. I understand you "reviewed", but not "patrolled" the article, right? Still, regardless if it's patrolled or not, according to what I understand, since the article is older than 90 days it should be indexed by Google, is that right? It is not yet indexed, so either I'm understanding something wrong, or there is a problem with the article (?). If you cannot help me with my question, would you mind referring me to who could do? Thanks a lot. Samer.hc (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Samer.hc: There is no difference between patrolling and reviewing—or at least there shouldn't be. They are just the result of clicking different buttons; the reviewing interface has some tools built in that afford reviewers more flexibility and integrates different parts of their work. I'm not sure why the article isn't being indexed; I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable comments you made against Second Punic War and which I am shamefully late in going through and actioning. I am truly sorry about that, but your work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Mention at AN

Hi, I mentioned you at WP:AN. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy_(again) ~Awilley (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Linda Gerdner on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mulatto on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes

a. Galatians 6:1 Or Brothers and sisters; also verse 18 CarboniADV (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Führer on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Milky Way on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Compassionate727!

Happy New Year!

Compassionate727,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Economist close

Hi. This was disappointing to see (and I only saw it because of the mention). Archives typically shouldn't be edited (as it says in bold at the top of all of them). If the discussion really needs a close, it can be unarchived first. I'd also take issue with the wording of your close. Characterizing Tamzin's objection as disagreed with the eventual outcome and chose to object to how the RfC had unfolded rather than present their own arguments and attempt to salvage a situation they perceived to be hopeless seems like it's assigning something like bad faith, like they're filibustering rather than highlighting actual issues with the RfC itself. And the characterization of my own comment, which includes "per Tamzin", as mostly or solely because they felt it was frivolous doesn't read as accurate, either. You've effectively just misrepresented a third of the participants and decided their position had no merit. All this said, I'm not going to bother challenging the outcome. If anything, I'd probably question the idea that it actually needed closing, but if it were to close (granted, I'm biased), I think the best would just be something that acknowledged the objections to the RfC and say no consensus for any downgrading of The Economist from "generally reliable". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Your complaints regarding my characterizations of comments are fair, and I apologize to Tamzin and Sideswipe9th if they interpreted them as an aspersion, because I certainly didn't mean it like that. Pile-on voting is a thing, especially in situations like this where the exigence isn't obvious to an outsider, and in my opinion, a person would be justified in wanting to start over on better footing instead of trying to fight it when one side of a dispute had been inadequately represented for a significant portion of the discussion. After all, poorly executed discussions often lead to outcomes that don't actually represent the community's wishes. Your comment that I misinterpreted your vote by overlooking the "per Tamzin" is also correct, although I think it is an error of attribution only: other editors, like LokiTheLiar, HouseBlaster, and Silverseren, commented solely that the RfC shouldn't have happened, rather than it unfolded poorly (as Tamzin had argued).
I disagree that I dismissed the opinions of those who voted option X as meritless. At least, I didn't mean to; I may well have communicated this poorly. Had option X been the prevailing sentiment, I would have concluded that consensus was to just discard the discussion, but it was chosen by a little less than a third of participants. With almost two-thirds of participants selecting option 1, and no arguments for downgrading it prevailing due to policy merits (indeed, barely anyone argued that this was the correct course of action), I don't see how I could find anything but an affirmative consensus that it is reliable in this area. If you disagree, I'd be grateful for your further insights.
I'm aware that it is unusual to edit archives, and I'm willing to adopt a different procedure like the one you suggested, although that seems like more work for no obvious benefit. Normally, I leave a message on the active talk page noting that I have closed an archived discussion, which handles the visibility problem; it's my fault for forgetting to do that here. I too was unconvinced a closure was necessary at first, but it was requested at CR, and after seeing the wrinkle added by the option X voters, decided I could see why it was requested. I suppose the fact that we're now discussing what the correct outcome should have been further evinces its utility. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
With respect to your statement in the closure that Genericusername57 is cautioned that the community felt this and the two related RfCs were frivolous and that he should not open similar RfCs in the future, do you actually see a consensus that the community thought that the RfCs were frivolous? While a minority of editors expressed that view, I don't really see why that language is in the closing summary. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk Between the number of people who directly said as much and the number who said things along the lines of "obviously it's reliable," yes, I felt like there was a consensus that the discussions weren't warranted. I'm not wedded to this though and would be willing to strike it if you (or anyone else) felt it was inappropriate. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I do also want to emphasize that I think the vast majority of the close was thorough, and I appreciate the time that you put into it, and it's largely very good. But I do have a problem with that line being included.
Something along the lines of "obviously it's reliable" doesn't necessarily render a discussion frivolous if there's a WP:CONLEVEL issue going on within a topic area (as appears to have been the case prior to the RfC). It's also a conclusion of consensus w.r.t. a conduct issue, and I really don't think that there's a consensus that the RfCs were in some way a true conduct issue on the part of the person who started it; certainly it wasn't enough to give them a formal caution in the closing summary. I'd kindly ask that that part of the summary be struck as out-of-scope for the discussion and also not reflecting the community consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: Reasonable points. It has also occurred to me that as a general rule, it may be better to leave formal conduct warnings to admins. Struck. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Compassionate727,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox country on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Grayzone on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Rutles on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Redaction

The comment I redacted was a UCOC violation in what is doubtless going to be a discussion with high visibility outside the project. I'm asking you kindly not to edit war with me over it, it's not worth it. – Joe (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Was just about to leave a message on your talk page, but you beat me to it! I won't edit war with you, of course. I agree with you that certain parts the edit are inappropriate and should be redacted (perhaps more of them than I did; if you think my proposed redactions were too conservative, I'd be glad to hear your input). But IMO, other parts of the rationale (like the part comparing V2022 to the mobile version) are fine and should be left intact. It's precisely because this is so high-visibility, and some outsiders will probably come away with the impression that we don't care what they think, that we shouldn't be stricter than we need to be. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
See wikt:gimp#Etymology 2. Their support is still included in the count, but as I said in my edit summary, if you can't make a point without belittling others, you can't expect that point to stand. For me high-visibility means being stricter in communicating that Wikipedia is not a space where anything goes, because we don't care what people who refuse to abide by our core conduct norms think. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
…looks we probably just aren't going to agree on this one. That's fine, I'll drop it; it's not like he's the only editor saying those things. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

ILL?

Hi! Can you do anything for WP:REX#Otto John please? Thank you – Doc Taxon • Talk • 12:51, 26. Jan 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, yes, sorry for forgetting to reply. I can't promise any results, but I have made the request. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot! Keep me posted. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 17:37, 26. Jan 2023 (UTC)
Have you got news yet? – Doc Taxon • Talk • 08:50, 8. Feb 2023 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: Not yet. Might be another week or so. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 10:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'm waiting – Doc Taxon • Talk • 08:17, 9. Feb 2023 (UTC)
Hi, have you got some news? – Doc Taxon • Talk • 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
No, I'll ask about that, although I can guess the answer: it seems this is only held by the British Library, which I know from experience does not lend works it considers old or rare. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for asking in advance ... – Doc Taxon • Talk • 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: Librarian says it is as I guessed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Close

Hi, you closed this Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory#RFC_on_conspiracy_theory_in_the_name. This is not an appeal to re-open it, nor to discuss the subject of it. I do want to clarify a few things since you have argued for sanctions implying that I am being disruptive (it sounds like to me at least), were you?. I dont agree with the essay on drop the stick, wikipedia is a collaboration and nothing is a win or a loss, so I dont share that frame of mind. Stick is like a counter-WP:SOAP argument and presumes that I am advocating something, which I deny. I dont recall ever editing one of these gender articles (cant rule it out) but dont recall, thus a SOAP argument is out of reach here. That said, clearly the RFC was poorly ill formed, that happens at times, and I acknowledge that and moving on past the carcass on the street even though its rot might be odious to some.

There was WP:BEFORE above in Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theory_in_the_name and you will note in comments editors said:

  • "Do LGBT people ever 'groom' children, obviously yes"
  • "My belief is that it should be "nonjudgmental language", (refer NPOV)."
  • "Is LGBT grooming a conspiracy theory?" That is not for us to answer, go by what RS say"

Given the comments I ran an RFC to discuss it. I recall that there was only one source VOX that used the term, (another blog used it) and some other SYNTH that editors had put together for it.

AGAIN THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO RE-HASH THE POINTS OF THE RFC, NOR THE CONTENT so I do not seek nor request rebuttal on any of the content comments above. This message is to point out that there are other editors also discussing this matter and the RFC was not made in bad faith as you seemed to allege in your close.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I should have chosen my words better; I was much too curt. I probably also should have paid more attention to who I was talking to; I see now that have been editing for almost twenty years and have ten thousand edits under your belt. I had assumed you were more inexperienced, for no particularly good reason; that's on me. Sorry.
With respect to WP:STICK, you're correct that Wikipedia is a collaboration and not, for example, a debate society, but I think you are paying too much attention to the language of "winning" and "losing." You could just as easily replace it with "the majority of editors/consensus agreed/disagreed with you" and the point would be the same: sometimes there is little or nothing that could reasonably be gained by continuing a discussion, and in such cases it is better to find something else to do.
Also, I want to clarify that I wasn't proposing sanctions against you. I didn't even mean to threaten them, although I understand why you read it that way. I was trying to highlight how insisting on having a discussion that everybody else wants to move on from can be considered disruptive. Sometimes I see new editors try to prolong a conversation forever, thinking that if they keep at it, they'll eventually sway enough people to their side; usually, they just end up topic banned for being annoyed. I was wanting to warn you about that possibility so that you don't push too hard and make yourself noxious to other editors. Now that I have acquainted myself with your tenure, I see you probably didn't need any such warning.
As to the merits of the underlying content dispute, you may actually be right. I haven't really looked at it closely enough to have my own opinion, but it wouldn't surprise me, as Wikipedia editors overall have a strong pro-LGBT bias (stronger than their broader left-wing bias is). I suspect you felt that the talk page discussion was at an impasse and were trying to use the RfC to draw in new voices, which is not unreasonable, but there's two things you should keep in mind. 1) RfCs exist to solicit opinions from outsiders on specific proposals (e.g., include or exclude X text), not statements of fact. If you want to propose renaming the page, RMs are the way to do that. 2) You don't want to seem to be reviving and relitigating a settled question under the pretext of soliciting outside feedback, which many felt like you were doing here (although, on a second look, I think there was some reflexive piling-on there and I should have paid less attention to it).
Personally, I think that if you wanted to, it would be reasonable to start a RM proposing to move the page to "Groomer (anti-LGBT slur)" because that proposal generated significant support in the immediately prior discussion and didn't get a full hearing in August's RM.
…I'm tired and not sure I addressed everything. Let me know if you have any further questions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I think I've persuaded myself that my close was actually pretty bad. I'll write a new statement in a couple hours, but I need to quickly finish an assignment before class first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the update. My feeling was that the move discussion was flawed in that many editors seemed to discuss that conspiracy theory was being used as nothing more disparaging of the subject could be found (despite the lack of sources that actually supported it). Then the moved was closed by a subject matter advocate and I felt that the close could have been lacking impartiality. I felt the move discussion veered off course into a discussion of what better disparaging names to use, which I felt was off topic and helped to steer the discussion back to the outcome. So I thought I would open a discussion (RFCbefore) and then later run an RFC, to focus on the limited claim as if was actually a conspiracy theory and then later it could maybe be discussed what the name of the article should be (noting maybe it would still retain that name, or maybe some adjustment). It seems the advocacy on the article (and I suppose the large topic) is strong so I thought that a focused RFC would be the best approach (which later I subsequently botched). Off topic, I previously got spanked for edits in a southeast asian nation (that i eventually got a tban for) mostly the result of excessive reverts (with curt edit summaries) of what I felt were also NPOV/BLP violations. I didn't realize the editors on that article were highly organized and had a noticeboard focused on politics in that nation to alert editors interested in that topic (I wasn't myself super interested in the topic so I didnt know) so I soon ran afoul of reverts and it looked like bullying on my part. So I somewhat changed my approach to run more RFCs with the intent to shine light on things that I didn't find were neutral rather than directly editing in these topics. I often wade into topics and find that whatever the subject may be, there are some editors that seek to disparage it (be it a BLP on a undesirable figure such as Harvey Weinstein) or a former brutal dictator's wife. The subjects are deserving of the negative view (to some extent), but the dogpile I find a bit too much and can go over the top in that it becomes a virtual extrajudicial court procedure. I had never heard of this LGBT article subject until seeing something in the news and came across it, and then noticed yet another wikipedia conspiracy theory name in the title. I took more interest as I hope we don't have a conspiracy theory for so many articles, but that is what it seems. Anyhow, thanks for your comments and happy editing. As you said, I have been around a long time and dont take it personally. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ultraman Decker Finale: Journey to Beyond on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

March 17: You're invited! Indiana Women in the Arts editathon

 Upcoming Indianapolis event
March 17: Indiana Women in the Arts

You are invited to join us at Newfields for an edit-a-thon on Indiana women in the arts, co-hosted by Wikimedians of Indiana and IUPUI University Library.

Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on women artists and artworks of Indiana.

Visit the Wikipedia Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more.

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
🥰 BillyAsakura (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please put the e back in magazine

Please put the e back in magazine the rest of the name is in English AsaneBane (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

comment

Just sayin', you might feel differently about whether commenting is useful if you were thinking of closing a difficult discussion. Multiple participants in this discussion have made accusations of intentional wrongdoing by the closers. Valereee (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 9) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE BillyAsakura (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Citizen Kane on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Dennis Rogers

Hi, this is probably the correct close, but I'd like some further explanation. There's no consensus, sure, but given how keep is an option more disliked than liked I feel an elaboration as to why you felt that the no consensus should default to keep in this instance is warranted. (I don't mind the NAC; the gamut of RfD admins commented in that discussion.) J947 † edits 05:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to elaborate. IIRC, I calculated the votes as seven keep, six disambiguate, three delete, and one who supported either of the latter two. Is is quite true that more people disfavored than favored keeping, but this is also true of all other proposals. Consequently, there was clearly not a consensus to do any particular thing. Normally when that happens, we just… throw up our hands in exasperation and retain the status quo ante because that's the only fair thing to do. That said, sometimes it makes sense to override the status quo with whatever proposal is least objectionable overall; I think that was what you were asking me to speak about. I've done that before, but in this case, where ~40% of participants expressed that keeping the redirect was their first choice, the status quo is too popular for me to just override it like that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration. I would have counted slightly differently, and perhaps closed the discussion differently, but obviously I'm biased here. :) J947 † edits 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You're invited! Indiana Politics & Government Editathon on Saturday, May 13

Upcoming Indianapolis event - May 13: Indiana Politics & Government 2023

It's been an eventful state legislative session in Indiana, and local elections took place this week, so we have lots to cover! You are invited to The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis for a Politics & Government editathon to improve write articles about local political and government topics of interest and improve information about local officials, candidates, elections, and legislation. Come join us at this fun venue, with free parking and refreshments provided!

11am–4pm The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis, IN.

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians in Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC).)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Threatening posts

I just got a post from another editor who has threatened to try to expand my topic ban. This despite the fact I have avoid any arguments and tried my best to comply with the issues he brings up. I find the whole behavior here very unfriendly. Especially since I am never allowed to defend myself. No amount of complying with various requests seems to be honored or appreciaited. I am frustrated and afraid. I canot seem to avoid people making threats to further limit my ability to edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Hello, sorry for the massive delay! Between finals week, graduation, traveling outside the country, being without a computer, and now bracing for a foot surgery, I have not had much time for editing. It does look like the confrontation fizzled out, so that is a plus. As far as the crux of the dispute goes, it looks like the editor was merely frustrated that you have been creating categories "occupation X of place Y" without always first verifying that the corresponding "occupation X from place Y" does not already exist, and vice versa. I would say this is a reasonable grievance; this is something you need to check. Of course, I expect you already do check normally and just forget sometimes, which is quite human and I won't berate you for. I see that you normally use HotCat to modify categories, and that can help you; if the category already exists, HotCat will auto-fill the remainder of it, so if you go to add someone to, e.g., Category:Military people from the Russian Empire and it doesn't auto-fill, that should serve as a nudge to check whether the corresponding "of" category exists. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Baháʼí Faith on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Timothée Chalamet on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Neo-Confederates on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at User talk:Ivanvector on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Michael King III" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Michael King III has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Michael King III until a consensus is reached. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Translation help

Hi! I found you through the Translators Available page. I was wondering if you'd be free to help out with sorting out an excessive citations issue over at Siege of Nueva Concepción. The main contributor to the page has a habit of citation overkill and I'd love to fix the current citations, but I don't speak Spanish (which is the language a lot of the sources are in). If you have the time, could you help out? It's fine if you don't want to though :] Thanks!! Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 18:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When I have a bit of free time, I'll take a look at it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Declan James (producer)

Information icon Hello, Compassionate727. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Declan James (producer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Compassionate727,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis

Upcoming Indianapolis event - June 24, 2023: Wiki Loves Pride Indy

You are invited to join us at Spades Park Branch Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics, individuals, organizations, and legislation in Indiana.

2 pm to 5 pm at the Spades Park Branch of The Indianapolis Public Library.

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC).)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Compassionate727,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:JoJo (singer) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Declan James (producer)

Hello, Compassionate727. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Declan James".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Nueva Concepción

Thank you for the rewrite of Siege of Nueva Concepción! I've always wanted to properly rewrite it (as is maybe evidenced by my constant typo + grammar fixing!) but never had the energy. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a mess. I figured that while I was reading every source to fix the overcite issue, I may as well just rewrite it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You're invited! Indiana State Fair Wiknic on Sunday, July 30

Upcoming Indianapolis event - July 30, 2023: Indiana State Fair Wiknic

We are partnering with the Indiana State Fair to offer FREE tickets to the fair for Wikipedians! We will be meeting on July 30th at 10am to pass out tickets and have a quick info session before we attend the fair (feel free to branch off and share your accomplishments on the Meetup page later!) Detailed instructions on how the day will go is available on the Meetup page! We hope you'll join us to edit about things related to fair (historic buildings, foods, animals, activities, and the fair itself).

All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!

10 am to ? at the Indiana State Fairgrounds; meet at the Deaf School Gateway

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC).)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Samaire Armstrong on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clint Eastwood on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Danny Masterson on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Compassionate727,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:IPhone X on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're invited! Underrepresented Artists of Indiana editathon on Oct. 11

Upcoming Indianapolis event - October 11, 2023: Indiana Under-represented Artists Edit-a-thon
Herron School of Art and Design
Herron School of Art and Design

You are invited to Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design for an Under-represented Artists of Indiana Edit-a-thon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on under-represented Indiana based artists and art/artist organizations and groups in Indiana today, and historically.

  • When: Wednesday October 11, 2023 11:30 am - 2:00 pm Eastern
  • Where: Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design 735 W. New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202
  • Parking: Please park in lot 88 - the visitor parking area in the garage across the surface lot from Herron. We will have parking vouchers available.
  • What to bring: Your preferred editing device and necessary charging cables, and any material you may want to reference. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.

All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!


We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC).)"

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Columbus on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joseph Stalin on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Germany on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:James Veitch (comedian) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries/doc

Template:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Compassionate727:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Stations articles needing attention

A tag has been placed on Category:Stations articles needing attention indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shambuka on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On my talk page, you added:

Control copyright icon Hello WikiUser70176! Your additions to Memorial of Rebirth have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello
  • 1) I have no problem at all with the removal of my edit from the Memorial of Rebirth page. I do not care one bit if the description of the monument is on its page or not.
  • 2) That being said, I do have a problem with the accusation of me violating WP:COPYRIGHT. While I have been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years and never ever have I violated the copyright policy, it is not inconceivable that I made a mistake. All too possible. Out of curiosity, what copyrighted material are you talking about? I just translated the description of the monument from its wiki.ro page [1]. The description of the monument (of the 4 elements, that is), per the designer's specs, appeared in many Romanian newspapers at the time (2005) - which I could cite, but this being a Wikipedia in English, I thought best not to as would be unverifiable by the majority of the readers. Consequently, I just translated the section describing the monument from its Romanian page, which in itself does not cite anybody because it is public knowledge by now: it's a description of a public monument. Could you clarify for me what is the problem, please? Because I am thoroughly confused.
  • P.S. The [News article] you put on the wiki.org page though, funnily enough, copied the Wiki.ro page and not the other way around. Check the dates: Wikipedia.ro description of the monument is from 2007 and your DC News article is from 2019. Mr. Flaviu Predescu, the author of said article plagiarized Wikipedia and not the other way around. Of course, it's all too plausible that both wiki.ro page and Flaviu Predescu plagiarized from a third, unknown source, as the historical section of the magazine cited on wiki.ro page is now defunct. Regardless, the crux of the matter is that I have not violated WP:C. So please un-grey (un-block?) my edits from the history of the page. I will certainly not revive my edit to the memorial's description, rest assured, but I feel that accusation of violating WP:C is tarnishing my reputation needlessly. By the way, I see that my edit adding the infobox to the page is also greyed out and surely there is no reason for that either. If there is some other problem I overlooked, please let me know in the space below. Thanks! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@WikiUser70176: It seems I misunderstood the situation. I did not realize that the article that CopyPatrol found was translating the Romanian Wikipedia article, although for other reasons that doesn't make the situation entirely clear for me. Responding to your points in no particular order:
  • It is fine to copy or translate content from other Wikipedia articles. However, you need to note the source of the material in your edit summary, so make sure you do that next time.
  • In this case, though, the Romanian Wikipedia article was copying without proper attribution from elsewhere, so you don't want to simply copy that into English Wikipedia because that introduces the same problem here.
  • The description itself should be presumed to be copyrighted unless evidence is found otherwise. I found this from the Romanian Wikipedia article which attributes the descriptions to government pamphlets; normally, I would presume the descriptions to be written by a government employee, which in Romania's case leaves me uncertain on its copyright status (Romanian copyright law seems to perhaps be less strict than American). However, you said that you know the description was actually written by the monument designer himself. I would presume that he owns the copyright then; that it was published widely may or may not be evidence that the description is freely licensed or public domain.
  • Per WP:RSUEC, English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are fine if they are better sources for other reasons (e.g., only they contain the necessary information). It's definitely better to cite a non-English source than leave the source unclear. Keep in mind that non-speakers of a language can usually get at least a rough sense of what a source says by running it through a machine translator.
So this matter is actually rather complicated. If you have a source that identifies the description as the author's, I would say that it's fine to re-add the descriptions alongside some note that they are the artist's own description (rather than someone else's), because then the descriptions are an important part of understanding the work. If you can't find such a source anymore, then I'm not sure what the right action is.
Regarding your last question: the edits where you added the infobox and did other things were deleted because they are the same edit (or after the edit) where you added the memorial's description, so hiding those revisions was necessary to actually remove the description from Wikipedia. Because you are the only person who edited in that period, though, this is not an attribution problem; everyone can still tell that it was you who added it by comparing the revisions before and after the deleted ones. I can't undelete the edits because I'm not an administrator; I only requested that they be deleted. You can ask the deleting admin (Nthep) to do so and point him to this conversation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope I clarified everything adequately for you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Romanian copyright law says "simple facts and data" are ineligible for copyright. I'm not sure the descriptions of the monument come under that heading. If not, then the standard Romanian copyright term of lifetime +70 years applies - there isn't an exemption for government works.
Compassionate is right in the reason why the edits to the infobox were also revision-deleted. To work properly, all the revisions in which the copyrighted material appeared need to be hidden from view. otherwise someone would only have to look at old revisions in the article history to see the copyright violation.
It's unfortunate that the ro-wiki article was under-cited and I think the best we can say about this is that it's an accidental and unintended copyvio where the transalation and addition to the en-wiki article was made in good faith. Nthep (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. I agree with you both. I'll leave a better edit summary next time. Thanks for clarifying why the edits were greyed out! As for the monument's description, like for everything else, best to leave it out if uncertain. I found more sources with that description, but all are dated after the wiki.ro edits, so I don't know which is what. I know about the naming of the four elements because I was there a bit after they erected it and its unpopularity caused quite a stir, so I didn't think it necessary to find a source for that, since it's mostly public knowledge. Anyway, it's not big deal; I just randomly stumbled upon that page, it's not something I'm an expert in. Thanks again to you both for the assumption of good-faith, which is not misplaced in my case, and happy editing. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 19:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

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

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Moratorium

I am a little puzzled by the close, not the close itself but by the timing. If the substantive discussion to which the moratorium refers, closes (as seems possible) with nocon, that would imply more discussion not less? Should not the moratorium closing await the outcome of the main discussion first? Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The current RM has been widely attended. If it does close without finding a consensus, immediate further discussion would almost certainly not change that and therefore prove to merely be a further waste of time. This is what editors supporting the moratorium wish to prevent; their desire to do so is not likely to be contingent upon the result. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I can see that logic, but I hope you can see mine as well. The moratorium was proposed early on in the main discussion by move opposers with a view to shutting down the move discussion, which fortunately failed, while the discussion has been twice extended instead. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Maine and Talk:Israel–Hamas war on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Compassionate727/Archive_18&oldid=1223335666"