Jump to content

User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Thank you

I'm Diane and I was working on Hannah Wimbolt article. I am a total novice but I know I need to reference my various newspapers and books so I will need to spend more time - probably tomorrow and Thursday. I do appreciate your help because this coding is a totally new experience for me. Diane Coffey (talki) 20:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also working with Diane and I've hit a bit of trouble. I have accidentally used a lower case 'b' rather than an upper case 'B' in the article title. Is it possible to change this, do you know? The article is Laurie Bolger. With thanks, you are a legend BryanMensa (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@BryanMensa: I've sorted that for you, and inserted a proper references section and tidied up the publications list. I'm not sure from the text that she meets our Notability criteria for entertainers, but haven't waded through the citations to actually check. So I'll let that one go. Beware the trap of adding categories that don't actually exist. Try to find related articles and check the categories these ones use. See Category:Alumni of Bath Spa University which does exist. Well done on getting engaged with the editathon. How did it go? I hope you found it worthwhile and that you're motivated to continue contributing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Diane Coffey:. Adding references to new articles or drafts is one of the hardest parts of editing, but is absolutely crucial. It has to be done properly. You are new here and inevitably you will make mistakes, especially if you rush to create new articles without first mastering the basics of how they are constricted (It was nine months before I first dared to create my first article.) May I suggest you get a overview of editing by trying The Wikipedia Adventure]? And also do read Wikipedia: referencing for beginners and check out Help:Tutorial, too. Whether you use our Visual Editor or our more useful but more technical-looking 'source editor', both editing tools actually contain a drop-down 'Cite' template, making your task of inserting in-line citations really simple. You do need to master how to utilise this, but you certainly don't need to fiddle around with complicated markup as I used to do when I first started, not realising all I had to do was simply fill in the relevant fields (Title, author, date, publisher, page number etc.) I should also say it's far better to work on articles in draft or in your personal sandbox (see link at very top of every page) and get them right. It may take time, but there's no rush, and far better than putting it out into mainspace too soon, only to find somebody comes along and doesn't like your initial version and proposes the article for deletion. There are no deadlines here on Wikipedia, but there is sadly a gender bias which is gradually being addressed. We need more women editirs, too, so I'm keen to encourage and welcome you here. Feel free to ask any questions, either of me, or at the Teahouse. Do check out the Women In Red project, as I think this will be right up your street. Best wishes from a very sunny Derby, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-User

OK, so your info on the Teahouse page was incredibly helpful. Thanks. I've had a look through the mentors. And am asking you if you'd mentor me a little where I need help, if you have time. I use wiki fairly regularly (as editor I mean) and have created new pages which I hope are of good standard. Nobody's Friends Titus Trust EdenTree Lycetts Catholic Church Insurance AssociationGraham Tilby and have also done major edits on some pages, including whole new sections on Justin Welby John Sentamu and other pages. I've learnt how to do infoxes, etc. But there are many areas of weakness. I haven't a clue how to go about developping my own userpage for example, so it's more or less empty. And I struggle with image sizing and location on pages. My special area of interest is Church of England, its abuse history, links with corporate business, eg its insurer and other aspects of the corporate structure. Everything I've learnt so far on wiki has been done by learn-as-you-go and it's often been painstaking. Suspect I've wasted alot of time getting things right - when it might have been easier asking someone. I am occasionally asked to do wiki editing by others following news reports and articles - and am always as scrupulous as possible in terms of gathering accurate references. And am conscious that because of the work I am known for as campaigner and media figure in this field, I need to keep tone neutral and depend on accuracy of facts and citations. But it would be true to say that I regard wiki as a powerful tool for bringing daylight to hidden corners of structures that might prefer not to have too much daylight brought to them. Hopefully I've told you all you need to know - to make a decision as to whether you'd be willing to mentor me. No worries if you decide not or are too busy. Joelionheart (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Joelionheart. Thanks very much for having the confidence in me to request assistance/adoption under the Adopt-a-User scheme. Although your subject interests and mine really don't seem to coincide at all - and might normally be the grounds for me to turn an editor down - I do really like your commitment and desire to improve your editing skills. And just like you, I worked on learning how to do stuff here bit by bit, doing tons of things the really hard way because nobody told me better ways of doing it. My learning curve for references was a nightmare, so I can appreciate your dilemma, nor did I know of the Teahouse where editors can now get simple and immediate help, though rarely an overview of their general working style and methods over a longer period.
So, actually, yes, I would be happy and honoured to work with you if you wish. Whilst a structured approach to adopting editors has been used by some mentors, I don't have anything prepared in that way as yet. So our relationship would have to take a fairly informal approach - offering you support in the areas you tell me - or I see - you're struggling with, then perhaps just sending you off in areas you haven't ever looked at to learn a few extra skills. It can be ended at any time, nor do I see any sort of 'graduation' where I say, 'OK, you're good to go, now'. Weirdly, although I came here to contribute as an editor, I am currently find get as much satisfaction by helping to keep the project running by removing bad edits (and occasionally bad editors) and in encouraging others, like you, to contribute well and effectively.
I might take on board a few lessons I've learned from working with my first 'adoptee' and perhaps create a subpage of my own userpage where we can converse, rather than fill up the talk page of new drafts with potentially irrelevant chit-chat on policy, help pages and so on. I'm not using watch lists at the moment to reduce the number of emails I'm receiving, as I'm very busy in the real world and have become swamped with webmail messages. That way I'd get an on-wiki notification from you of any post you made there, and you could add that page to your own watch list so you spot any replies I might make. How does all that sound? Regards from the Midlands of England, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick Nick Moyes, and thanks for your reply. Informal is good. Better for me than a structured 'lesson plan' approach as I can ask for help as and when I need. Probably more to begin with - there are many aspects I find tricky with wiki. Once off grid into this realm of wiki I'm pretty much lost! May seem as if I'm a fairly experienced editor with a handful of new pages and infoboxes - but I haven't a clue what happens behind the scenes. I see people have fancy user pages but have no idea where all those boxes come from. Are they 'given' by others? Perhaps that's a daft question? Part of me is saying it doesn't matter at all as that's not what I'm here for - I don't need to collect accolades. But then perhaps editors might take what I'm doing a little more seriously if I have some of the right boxes! Non-coinciding of interests is good. You'll see my work with dispassionate and objective eyes. I am very close to the subjects I am editing. So it's often quite strange to be neutral. I think on the whole I've managed quite well. And am proud of some sections on majorly important pages - which have hardly been touched since. So where do I start? Is this the place we meet - or is there another page to post to? And my first request - when you have time - can you look at Nobody's Friends and indicate how I might improve it in terms of layout, information, quotes, etc. Am I making basic howlers? Is tone right? Can I ask for people to review or is that too early? It's a tricky article because the club is in fact as you've probably guessed very secretive. I have little to go on - so I'm trying to build in as much info from modern period as possible. I have some information I can't reference - as I've had direct contact with the Treasurer/Secretary of the Club. So for example I know that Nobody's in fact admitted women some time ago, and now has 150 members. And there are other things I'm aware of from recent Private Eye articles but I can't access them for reference. This is one of the difficulties I often find - that the organisations I am writing about often wish to keep their worlds hidden. Or have scant media coverage. Another thing I've come across is that some of these organisations have their PR media bods act as their wiki protection - they will step in to 'manage' the page quickly if they feel too much daylight. If you want a classic example of this and see how I sucessfully edited a very thin page substantially, (I warn you it's a long read - but is quite comic) - have a look at Allchurches Trust Talk page. You'll see a polite ding-dong between myself and their PR person. I won every argument. They keeled over. But it took some nerve. Anyway, it's quite funny. And it's there for all time. I chuckle still at that victory! Tnanks for your help.Joelionheart (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I will reply, in full, soon. Rather busy ITRW at present. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi again Joelionheart. I am terribly sorry for the loing gap in replying to you. I did start to draft a reply on my mobile, but lost it all. I have less access to a keyboard than I need at the moment, and whenever I do, other things seem to demand my attention. Anyway, I've takena look at Nobody's Friends again. In general, it's fine, though I could suggest a few tweaks, as follows:
  • Fix typo in lead. Its motto..., not It's motto...
  • Move image to start of page, and enhance caption if you're not planning to use an optional WP:Infobox.
  • Well done on using the {{quote}} temaplte, though personally I wouldn't have utilised them for that series of short quotations as, following one after the other, they do tend to break open the layout of the page. I'd have considered using few quote templates, but keeping others within the flow of a paragrpah, and citing each one to its source with inline citations as I went along.
Other than that, I can't find too much to criticise, to be honest. Your references seem fully entered, and I am impressed that you didn't fall into the trap of adding factual content that you are unable to reference. Including only what you can cite is the best approach. Occasionally (assuming you're not breaching anyone's confidence or copyright) one can find a way to mention things on a talk page that a future researcher might find helpful, but which at this point in time one wouldn't be able to reference. This might give a steer to subsequent editors on what to focus on, or remains still unknown. See Talk:Joseph Whittaker for one way I took that opportunity.
It's taken me a while (another reason for the delay in responding), but I have finally sat down and read the talk page for Allchurches Trust. You were right - it was long, but very impressive. I think you both handled yourselves very well, and respect to you for digging in to find suitable content and responses. We always tell organisations that they don't own pages that refer to them, and it was heart-warming to see how you addressed their concerns and reached a consensus. You clearly have the makings of a superb editor. If I can assist in that process, I'd be only too pleased. Something I think I put in my first, lost draft reply to you was to suggest you made a bulleted or numbered list of the topics you feel weakest in, and where you'd like some help. We can work through that and help bring you up to speed in those particular areas. Do try to remember to include proper wiki-links when referring to other pages you want me to look at. And do you know what a 'diff' is and how to link to one in a discussion (see WP:DIFF)? And also how to indent your replies for clarity (see WP:INDENT)? I've suggested these as little tips you might be interested to read up on for next time if you're not sure how they work. You might also like to remind me which editing tool you prefer to use - our source editor (which I recommend experienced editors familiarise themselves with), or our newer Visual Editor. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Angela McRobbie

I nick moyes, our undergraduate research class is currently working on a project about women in feminism. Part of that project is to provide an updated Wikipedia source for each leader. Angela McRobbies page isn't as up to date as it could be considering some of the descriptions cited her last book as "The Aftermath of Feminism". Her page will be fully updated by October 30th, so I would greatly appreciate if the changes i made were left alone. I do apologize for not having an explanation. I am only using Wikipedia for this class project and Im not familiar with how everything works lol. If there is a section where I can leave an edit note, I will explain why I removed some of the content.Thank you for your help! Iwill be making various changes to Angela's page over the next couple of weeks, and I will be sure to have it as accurate as possible with all references included. Please be patient with me. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateMaster17 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, AccurateMaster17 I recognise that the article needs improvement, but this is a live encyclopaedia. Every change made should be an improvement, and there should not be temporary periods of disruption. If you think this is inevitable, you may place the {{In use}} template on the page for a short while to avoid edit conflicts with others. An alternative is to temporarily copy the complete text into your user sandbox (but you must use an edit summary when you do so which gives attribution to the source. i.e. you must clearly state where the content you're pasting in has come from so that our licencing conditions are upheld). You and others could then work on an alternative version in a safe environment. If you like the result, you could then link to it vi a talk page discussion and see what other editors feel. If you get consensus, you could make those edits to the real page. I'm pinging Danielle Peers to draw her attention to this discussion as I see she made one edit which removed a significant amount of cited content, whilst adding a lot of her personal opinions and hyperbole about a new publication. Whilst it's fine to update the page, all content must be based upon third-party, independent and reliable sources. It's terribly important that you remind an student you teach that this is an encyclopaedia, not a free-for-all blog post where anyone can add their own opinions. Wikipedia should be using a neutral tone of voice to reflect dispassionately what others have said about a topic, not leading the way in promoting it ne novo. I recognise that the Angela McRobbie page does needs improvement, so good luck with that. Might I suggest you tell your professor to get every student s/he asks to edit Wikepedia to first undertake our rather fun interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure? There are 15 badges to collect as you learn the basic of how Wikipedia works. (Try it from a PC/desktop, rather than a mobile, as it doesn't always work well with small devices). Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Nick, there are many articles which are vandalised but how can I know that which articles are vandalised?And how can I revert it if I am not informed?Md.Ali25 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Md.Ali25 Have you seen Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol which is a project to reduce vandalism by monitoring Special:RecentChanges? This is a live list of every current edit. Obviously, you have to make an assessment whether an edit is vandalistic or not. To help me, I use a particular setting which only shows the most likely problematic edits. This is the setting I use. Of course, you still have to make that assessment, but you could start by simply looking for very obvious harmful changes. - you click the 'diff' link to show what that change has done. Always Assume Good Faith - so only revert an edit (with an edit summary please!) to explain why you've reverted.  If you're not sure, you could simply put that page on your Watchlist and see if anyone else reverts that edit over the next few minutes to days. If you're over-keen to revert what turn out to be good edits, you will be gently warned by other editors that you;re not quite dong it right. Should that happen, do stop and think what it is that you're not quite doing right.
You could also go to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit where they have an 'academy' to help people learn how to deal with vandalism. Let me know how you get on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nick,I have enabled Twinkle which gives me an easy tool to fight vandalism.I decided to inform you as you told me to inform you how things go.Md.Ali25 17:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Ali25 (talk • contribs)

@Md.Ali25: Well done. If you have popups enabled for this site, you'll get a new window which opens up the editing tool on the user talk page of the person whose edits you've just reverted as vandalism. You're under no obligation to leave a warning, but (assuming your assessment of genuine vandalism is definitely correct), a gently escalating series of warnings can help to deter a new user from continuing in that manner. Rather than use the 'Warn' menu for someone who I see hasn't already received a friendly welcome message here, I try to use the 'Wel'come option leave a templated welcome messsage for 'problem users'. As always, be as polite as you possibly can, and assume good faith at all times. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick.Md.Ali25 09:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Ali25 (talk • contribs)

Bhutan wine question

Nick - thanks for the question regarding wine in Bhutan. I am the CEO of the Bhutan Wine Company, a Delaware based company set up to develop the fine wine industry in Bhutan. For the last two years we have been conducting extensive research in the country, working with a number of the governmental agencies, reviewing extensive soil and weather reports to evaluate where to begin with fine wine plantings. During this time, we stumbled on this Wikipedia entry regarding this attempt to plant vines in the country. We contacted the Taltarni wine company and spoke with a number of employees. They have no record of any such plantings. We also worked with the governmental agencies, who also had no record of any plantings. In order to bring plant material into the Kingdom, there are a number of Bhutanese regulations which are extremely protective of local plant species. There is absolutely no way vines could have been planted without going through a multi-year quarantine project with the appropriate governmental agencies. I know, because we are in the middle of this right now and it has taken us two years to get to the point where we are about to plant the first vines. Now, it is possible (maybe) that someone smuggled in vines. However the posting refers to 7000 vines, near Paro. This would be about 5 acres of vineyards in a well populated area that is quite small. There's no way this would have gone unnoticed. That said, we did detailed site surveys of the entire Paro area, as that is one of our first quarantine locations. There's no vineyards, no traces of vineyards, and no wild vine growth anywhere in the valley (which would happen in an area like this due to birds dispersing seeds). So we know emphatically that the posting is incorrect, and more importantly, it is also potentially harmful to our business as it makes it looks like grapes are unable to be grown in Paro, which we are about to attempt. Consequently, I would strongly recommend that we either remove the page as factually incorrect, or we revert it to the edits we previously made, which are accurate. Either approach is fine, but leaving it as is would be inaccurate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.174.156 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for reaching out to me. Bear in mind that I have no knowledge or interest in this topic, per se. Obviously you do, so perhaps the first thing I'd ask is for you to add a note to your userpage which simply declares your conflict of interest in this area, assuming you're planning to make further edits. The problem we have is that Wikipedia can only rely for its content on what has already been published in reliable sources. No matter what you or I happen to know personally, we simply aren't allowed to edit articles based on that knowledge. On the assumption that what you're telling me is totally factually correct, it's really unfortunate that the article is based on a 2nd or 3rd edition of a nationally known book on wines, published by OUP. (As an aside, have you and Taltarni reached out to the publishers or the authors and communicated your information with them? This seems a good idea, especially as I think that statement was also in the earlier (2006?) guidebook too. At least you me able to get it updated in later editions. I see on page 5 of the book that you are invited to send in updates to editorial@jancisrobinson.com. You could also make contact with the contributor (D.G.) of that particular piece on Bhutan, who according to page xi of that book, is Denis Gastin, a widely published Australian wine-writer, email: winewriterATdenisgastin.com.au )
If you represent the Bhutan Wine Company, I do see an opportunity for you (and I can't find any website for you) to publish a statement of the 'history' or maybe 'non-history' of wines in that country. Whilst there would remain a potential conflict of interest in editing, it could go some way to helping redress any factual errors. The problem we have in reverting to this earlier version is that the article consists of just uncited assertions and annotations, and it was those that I felt needed to be removed, whilst I also recognised the likely veracity of your claims. Do you have any feeling whether there is ever likely to be any press and media coverage about your company's work which could help to inform the article in the near future? Now, I could submit the page to our Articles for Deletion process, but any proposal for deletion might well be turned down, based on the Oxford Companion to Wine's claim. Now, if you were to make contact with the books's editors or contributors, and they agreed with you that it is an error on their part, Wikipedia does have a way of accepting emails from verified accounts which could possibly be used to establish that the one book on which this article is based is now formally recognised by those authors as being flawed. If you think you might be able to elicit an email from either Mr Gastin, or the Wine Guide's editors, then we might be able to demonstrate that there is no wine industry in Bhutan and to have the article deleted from Wikipedia, based on that WP:OTRS communication. (please see this last link for information on how it works). Of course, you being the Bhutan Wine Company might actually want an article on that industry in a few more years time, and could be frustrated if there are then no independent sources to demonstrate that there now is one! (though I did find this personal blog, and this, plus this from Jancis Robinson herself. (Wikipedia generally regards blogs as unreliable, so rarely uses them as citations.)
So please don't think I'm not trying to support your standpoint - it's just that all that we do here within Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources - and you're asserting (without formal evidence) that the only source in the page on Bhutan wine is utterly wrong. So we - well you- need to show it is wrong. I'm really sorry about that. Obviously, I have no idea who you are, so pointing us to some proven publications or websites is your best bet. I did try my very hardest in my edits to inject a healthy degree of scepticism about the 1990 reports, but until such time as you can get some media interest in your current work which refers back to earlier flawed reports, then we are rather stuck in a quandary.
If you are agreeable, I would be happy to copy/paste this conversation (plus some commentary of my own) into the Talk Page of Bhutan wine so that (despite you being an anonymous editor) there are at least some assertions permanently associated with that page to suggest that the tiny 42-word entry is indeed flawed. If we later can hear formally from the editors of the Oxford Companion to Wine that it was all just bunkum (via a published update or an email from them direct to our OTRS team) we can then decide on whether deletion or updating is the best route to follow. Does this help you in any way? Regards from the UK (and I'm wondering if I might be looking forward to receiving a nice case of Bhutan wine from you in a few years time, should your investigations bear fruit, so to speak!), Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much ... not only for your help as to what I needed to change about the article, but also for the encouraging words. (they were needed!)

Krishendrix78 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Coincidence

I was on your user page and saw the Wikipedian For template. I added it to my user page and was about to edit it with my start date and didn't have to - we both started editing on the exact same day, eight years, nine months and eleven days ago. What are the odds? Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: - hey, that's pretty cool. Though, actually, I've just checked and it looks like I've got 19 hours head start on you! LOL (And weirdly, like your dad, my mother was also an artist and illustrator, though nowhere near notable enough for me to start a page on her!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Haha - you had the advantage of the time zone difference! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #021, 24 Oct 2018

Portals have passed the 4,000 mark.

More new portals...

Here's a list of portals created since the last issue

List of new portals

Please inspect these portals, report problems or suggest improvements at WT:WPPORTD, or develop them further (see below). Thank you.

What's next?

There is still lots to do...

There are many subject gaps that need to be filled. This can be done by creating new portals, or by adding Selected article sections to existing portals. To create a new portal, simply place {{subst:Basic portal start page}} on an empty portal page, and click "Preview". If the portal is complete, click "Save". After you try it, come share your experience and excitement at WT:WPPORTD.

Each new portal is just a starting point. Each portal of the new design can be further developed by:

  • refining the search parameters to improve the results displayed in the Did you know and In the news sections.
  • adding more specific Selected articles sections, like Selected biographies.
  • inserting a Recognized content section.
  • adding more pictures to the image slideshow.
  • placing a panoramic picture at the top of the intro section (especially for geographic portals).

Besides the new portals, there are still about 1200 portals of the old design that need to be converted to the new design.

Many portals need to be de-orphaned, by placing links to them (in the See also section of the corresponding root articles, at the bottom of the corresponding navigation footer templates, and on the corresponding category pages).

Many of the new portals still need to be listed at Portal:Contents/Portals.

Bugs keep popping up in portals. These need to be tracked down and reported at WT:WPPORTD.

Tools are needed to make developing and maintaining portals quicker and easier.

Dreaming up new features and capabilities. Innovation needs to continue, to design the portal of tomorrow, and the portal development-maintenance-system of the future. Automation!

So, if you find yourself with a little (or a lot) of free time, pick an area (or more) above and...

...dive in!    — The Transhumanist   07:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can post proposals for the Community Wishlist Survey. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals until 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 16 November to 30 November.
  • Advanced item The wikis now have a content security policy report. This means that you might get a warning in your javascript console when you load external resources in your user scripts. For security reasons it is recommended that you don't do this. It might not be possible to load external resources in your scripts in the future. [1]

Problems

  • Your watchlist can show which changes you have already seen. This did not work for a few days. It has been fixed. [2]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 October. It will be on all wikis from 1 November (calendar).
  • The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer available. It will be removed from Special:Preferences. It has not been the standard editor for a long time. It was replaced by the 2010 wikitext editor. [3][4]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Screenshot showing the location of the pencil icon

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Toolbar with menu opened

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

Let's work together

  • The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
  • The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Re Teahouse query "What can I do to make this page more neutral?"

Hi Nick! You have given some excellent advice to the OP of the query above, but in your point 1., I think you've written "biased" where you mean "unbiased". A minor nitpick as your intended meaning is fairly obvious, but as an ex-professional editor and proofreader I tend to notice such things!

I would have considered inserting an amending note myself, but as a (determinedly) IP Editor the current page protection wouldn't have permitted me (a curse on this pestilential Toronto Troll), and it would probably be neater if you made a less obtrusive edit of your own text.
Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much - I will check and correct it asap. I agree with you in this instance about correcting others. More than just fixing a silly typo, obviously. Much appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nick! After seeing your comment to this edit at my watchlist, I looked at the section ...and found another possible typo: double blind vs. double bind. I'm not that good in English to be sure it actually is a typo and not a kind of a word play, so I'm not going to change it myself. Could you, please, check it, too? --CiaPan (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@CiaPan: I'm not doing too well at the moment, am I? Thanks for alerting me to this one. Weirdly, I've never heard of 'double bind', and read it (wrongly!) as 'double blind', as in the scientific testing method. So it was lucky I copy pasted the section link. Guess that's telling me either to be more careful, or not to edit Wikipedia at 2 in the morning. Either way, thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #022, 11 Nov 2018

Welcome AmericanAir88

Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:

Way to go!

Where's Evad?

Evad disappeared from Wikipedia on October 18.

He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.

Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.

The conversion continues

Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.

One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.

This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.

Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.

This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.

Going wide...

We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.

We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...

Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:

{{Portal image banner|File:Blueberries .jpg |maxheight=120px |overflow=Hidden }}

Using both maxheight=120px and overflow=Hidden produces this:

Project's status

There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.

Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals.

Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.

Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.

Until next issue...

See ya round the portal system!    — The Transhumanist   11:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

List of species and habitats of principal importance in England

Dear sir, Hope You might have seen my extension letter in 'request for permission to create article on List of butterflies in Andhra Pradesh in Wiki article 'List of butterflies of India' per state lists'. I earnestly request you to go through the tables in 'Sacred groves of Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam, and I solicit your valuable opinion and suggestions. The purpose of writing this letter is, I have gone through the page 'List of species and habitats of principal importance in England, I hope created by you (in fact I don't know how to check the creator of a page in wikipedia articles), which is really excellent. I got some doubts or suggestions (I don't know) regarding the table. for example: 1. species list, under taxon column for all mammals, it is better to mention class Mammal/Mammalia uniformly to all or Mammal and Cetacean (for whales) or Mammal and Chiropteran ( for bats) it goes on like this for others also. 2. under taxon column for all reptiles, it is better to mention order name reptile/reptilia uniformly or reptile and lizard/lacertilian for lizards, reptile and snake/ophidian for snakes, reptile and turtle/chelonian for turtles. Sir Please dont mistake me, I am novice in this wikiworld and not having in depth knowledge in any field. I am just having superficial knowledge in this biological world. I am a bit poor in my expressions in english also. Please suggest and advise me. I am extremely happy over your subject knowledge in many fields and friendly nature in your expressions. Thanking you sir, with regards, Dr. M. Rama Murty, --Bmantha (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bmantha: Please do not be worried by my silence. I have already part-drafted a (detailed) reply to your previous post, offering my support. I apologise that I have been very busy in real life and am not quite ready to post it, as yet. I hope to be able to reply within the next 2 days or so. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks, and you were right! Even though nothing bad happened, having that userbox just to have it ahead of time so I won't have to remember putting it there in the future, that would be misleading to other users. Thanks for saying that! :) Toad62 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: Thank you, muchly. It can be really hard to know how best to raise small errors, or how they'll be taken. But always better to raise something sooner, than let it become a problem later on. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please can you read my draft?!

Hi @NickMoyes: a few weeks ago you offered to mentor me... I've just finished writing my first page, and it's been submitted (thanks to TeaHouse help!)... I'd really appreciate it if you could look at it and comment, as I understand I can continue to edit it while it's waiting for approval. It's here (I'm learning!). Is this a reasonable request?? I'm finding some things about Wikipedia really straight forward, and others quite confusing Best wishes Ruthhenrietta (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: Stunning job! I'm really impressed, and by the time I saw it, Thomas Daniel (merchant) had already been moved to mainspace. But, yes, we always encourage editors to continue working on their articles whilst awaiting review. The reality is also that, despite there being a cue of around 3,600 draft articles at the moment, most reviewers quickly spot the non-promotional, really interesting articles like this one and review them very quickly. You'll have seen that I've removed all the external links within the article itself, as these go against our 'Manual of Style' I've converted most to inline citations for you. More on external links at WP:EL. You did a good job adding a table - these are never the easiest things to work with.
If you really fancy a challenge, I might suggest you put this article forward for our Main Page 'Did You Know...? spot. This is a way of showcasing new content. It can be a fiddly process to go through, but the prize of a mainpage presence for 12 or 24 hours is a great reward and gets you many thousands of views. You can find out more at WP:DYK though the instructions there are complicated. Here's a simpler version. The critical thing is that you have to make the submission within 7 days of it going into mainspace. After that, you can take your time addressing any feedback you receive to get it into shape. Something like:
  • "Did you know ... that merchant and slave owner Thomas Daniel was known as the 'King of Bristol' because of his power and influence over the city's business affairs?", or
  • "Did you know ... that at the abolition of slavery in Britain in 1834, Bristol merchant Thomas Daniel was awarded compensation for his loss of 4,967 enslaved people?"    
You might even be able to get the good folks at Bristol Museum to give you access to copy and upload his image to go on the main page.
Either way, you've done a great job and should be proud of your work. I can see you've mastered quite a lot, but if you wanted to drop me a list of things you still don't fully understand, I'd be happy to try and steer you in the right direction, or link to guidance pages you can read. I might be out of circulation for a little while on health grounds, but I'll do what a can to assist. There's no need to ping me if you post on my own talk page, though it's essential if you do it from another page. (Make sure you get me name spelled correctly, though. You missed the space off, so it wouldn't have worked anyway. But not to worry. Regards,


Helpful

Hey I saw a reply from you in one of the questions at the Teahouse, I found it helpful too. Thank you Yogibur (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't say which question, but I'm glad you found it helpful. Just watching and seeing other questions and answers is a great way to learn new stuff. All the best!. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

request for permission to create article on List of butterflies in Andhra Pradesh in Wiki article 'List of butterflies of India' per state lists.

Dear Sir, I am extremely happy - Already you have guided me in my first article, for which no words to express my happiness and gratitude. You have responded in a nice way, always guiding, supporting and encouraging me in creating new articles or editing articles. I did some research work and guided some research scholars also regarding the butterflies diversity of Visakhapatnam district (published some papers and the articles seen in some famous news papers of India and Andhra Pradesh) with some knowledge on state Andhra Pradesh level. Since the article is not existing I would like to contribute. Please guide me sir whenever time permits. I will follow your advise and instructions how to prepare the article which you have just mentioned. Thanking you sir with regards Dr.Rama Murty --Bmantha (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bmantha: Hello, Dr Murty. Please forgive me - I'm afraid I did not recognise your username when I replied at the Teahouse via mobile, and had not remembered we had previously communicated over Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam. You certainly seem like the ideal biologist to create that article. I hope I did not insult you by my reply. I do however worry whether your inexperience with Wikipedia might be a bit of a problem, but preparing a full species list in advance of trying to create it within Wikipedia does then make even more sense. I have rather a strong opinion of the many 'List of species' pages we have on Wikipedia. As someone who has researched, written and published both a printed checklist and a full Flora of my region, I get frustrated when I see the wasted opportunity of those Wikipedia lists that are totally non-sortable. To me as a consumer of biodiversity information, I would put the usefulness of printed checklists in order as follows (most useful at top):
  1. Taxonomic listing by scientific name
  2. Alphabetic list by scientific name
  • Regional or Country Status (Native, Alien)
  1. Conservation Priority status and then listed alphabetically by Scientific Name
  2. Alphabetically by Common Name
  1. Way down the bottom comes those random, totally incomplete lists of species we so often see on Wikipedia.
I wonder whether you would agree? But to be online and then to fail to take advantage of allowing the user to sort data in different ways is a terrible lost opportunity.
Not all my fellow Wikipedians see it that way. It is certainly true that a basic alphabetic or systematically arranged list that can't be sorted is considerably easier to create (especially if you want to include pictures), but does it offer as much encyclopaedic information to a user? Personally, I don't think so.
The nearest I have come to creating a regional species list on Wikipedia can be found it List of species and habitats of principal importance in England. I recognise that it has oddly named taxonomic categories, but these followed the names used by our government agency's own published list.
I would first put all the entries (Common Name, Scientific Name, Taxonomic Group name, Status, Conservation Status etc) into an Excel spreadsheet, directly from the online publication. For a checklist, I would want to ensure my spreadsheet was in taxonomic order, and so would add a sorting order column so I could return it to that arrangement within the spreadsheet prior to converting to Wikipedia-readable format. I used Excel's functionality to join column contents together so as to add the wikilink coding of double square brackets either side of the entry. So, by this stage I should have my spreadsheet looking like I want to see it on Wikipedia. I ensure the list is arranged taxonomically, and then I used a conversion tool (see https://excel2wiki.toolforge.org/) to convert to the usual wikimarkup code we see when using our Source Editor. That code is then pasted into my sandbox, where I can view the wikilinks. Many didn't work initially as they did not perfectly match existing page names or Redirect names. So these were manually resolved in my sandbox. I would check for accuravcy, either by following each individual link or, more easily, using the Navigation Popup tool to mouseover each link and check the displayed entry that appears.
If I felt I might need to make further major changes, I also copied those corrections back into Excel (which I keep as a 'Master' file) so that they match whatever I've changed in my sandbox. I then continue work in my sandbox by adding an introductory explanation of the List page, giving references to the published source or sources used to create the list. I think explicitly stating which checklist is used in the text is important, as different people use different checklists over the years, and it helps to know what the Wikipedia list page is based upon without having to go to the references section to find out.
My reason for creating a sortable table in taxonomic order is that it is not possible to return from alpha-sorting to taxonomic sorting unless there is a sort order column included - and this would probably be seen as intrusive. However, refreshing the page would return it to the order in which the table was originally inserted.
I would comment that List of butterflies of West Bengal is an unsortable, but pretty photographic list. List of butterflies of Kerala is an even more extreme example of over-use of photos. Neither page contains any introductory text giving me the information I would expect, such as total count of species, conservation statuses of those butterflies in India (or in just that region). Their use, therefore, is limited to being a poor-man's identification page, but gives me no idea how complete that list actually is! I would have to spend a lot of time counting entries and matching them to any published lists to be sure. List of butterflies of Gujarat is a simpler list, with a lead, but is uncited and unsortable. (See my comment on its talk page which I felt moved to make). I must reiterate my comment that many other Wikipedia editors are not sufficiently critical and are probably quite content with just a nice shiny page, partially complete and uncited, but full of nice pretty pictures, of course. I suspect I am in the minority in wanting to see 'List of species' that are based on scientific work, are actually informative and thus useful to readers!
Let me know what you think. I'll be happy to support you if you want to go down the route I have suggested. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir, Extremely happy to see your letter expressing your opinion on the articles. You are one of my favorite inspirers and guiding force in writing or attempted to write and create articles in wikipedia. Hats off to your knowledge in various fields and varied subjects and your systematic approach and commitment. Just I have gone through this of yours 'List of species and habitats of principal importance in England' - just simply excellent sir. I fully agree with what you said regarding the articles on butterflies of different states of India. To be frank enough, I am also a person who is with commitment, involvement, dedication and discipline and I love the work in which I am involved. I am also a result oriented person. I am sorry, these words appear as if they are a bit flattering.Though I am a retired Professor, but a student always and a constant learner. The main problem I am a learner in wikiworld. As you said still highly inexperienced, committing many mistakes but very eager to learn and correct. Still I don't know many words even you have used like sandbox. I am trying to learn. I will follow your suggestions and advise and try to be upto your expectations sir, Please try to look into my article "Sacred groves of Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam' in Wikipedia, where I tried to prepare tables, to depict the common name, scientific name and family. I am also not well versed with this modern computer language and applications. Regarding Butterflies, I will collect scientific data, citations, research paper URLs, along with my own articles and try to pool up the data. I know that it takes much time, I start now. I am confident, with your advise, support and constant guidance I will try to make it as more scientific and notable information in a nice format. Thank you very much sir, with regards Dr. Rama Murty, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmantha (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bmantha: Because our interests so strongly coincide, I would be very happy to mentor you on some of the basics of Wikipedia and to guide you to producing a List of butterflies of Andhra Pradesh. But there is one minor condition: I would ask, please, that you do not refer to me as 'sir'. I have tremendous respect for you as a retired professor (so probably ought to be calling you 'sir' instead!). Everyone is equal here, I personally feel more comfortable just be referred to as Nick, providing you are happy to do so. I recognise this is just a small cultural difference between us. In fact, whenever two editors leave messages for one another, the convention is to use their full username and to sign their post at one and the same time. This causes the other person to receive a 'ping' or notification message, which they see at the top of any page. Some people, like me, also 'opt in' to getting an email message to inform them that they have been 'mentioned'. As you probably already appreciate, most editors work anonymously, so nobody knows their real names, anyway. But that doesn't bother me.
It is clear that you have the biodiversity knowledge for you area, and I have the knowledge to help you mobilise it here. So that sounds like good cooperation. Although I normally only work publicly on Wikipedia, I think this is one time where we both might find it helpful to work using email, too, as you would be able to send me Excel spreadsheets to look at, and send back. Let me know if you think this would help, and I will send you my personal email address. (There is an 'email this user' link on the left side of the page when you are on one of my userpages.
It would be sensible to work on a dedicated subpage, so your Sandbox is ideal. There is a link to it at the top of every page (i.e. User:Bmantha/sandbox). You can have as many sub-pages as you need, and name them as you wish. e.g. User:Bmantha/Butterflies. These links will be red-linked (see WP:REDLINK) until such time as you actually create them by adding content and clicking 'Publish changes'.
I'm afraid I cannot write any more at the moment - I am a little unwell. Hope to be back soon, but please don't expect immediate replies from me. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nick, for accepting my request to guide and cooperate in creating this article on Butterflies. I wish You should 'Get Well Soon' --Bmantha (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for stepping on on the Ed Gold brouhaha. With great effort I had restrained from pointing out to Mr. Gold that except when he stirs up Teahouse, the article about him garners an average of five view a day, and perhaps he should work harder on his career and worry less about what is written about his career. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even noticed that! I am just in the process of leaving him a notice, telling him that the consensus at the Teahouse is that he's no longer welcome to post their, and am working out how to implement my first partial block on someone. I find this a really sad and most unusual situation where someone who could clearly benefit the project and could themselves benefit from people working with them. Instead, they have put everyone's back's up. In complete contrast, I have just received a lovely 'thank you' gift from the widow of a mountaineer about whom I chose to write earlier this year. I spent 6 months deciding whether I dared approach them to offer a chance to comment on my draft. They were over the moon that someone actually wanted to create a page about them. Those are the positive highlights, this has sadly been one of the negatives. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Well

It looks as if I have an enemy for a little while. It won't last that long. Wikipedia has a few editors who habitually have enemies, but that is mostly because those editors who have enemies have a way of offending people. I don't think that I am the sort who is looking for enemies. One of three things will probably happen. The two most likely possibilities are that he may get indeffed for being not here constructively, or that he may get tired and bored of being against me and find someone else to dislike. The less likely but still possible scenario is that he might grow up. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some very puerile actions there, even whilst I was trying to guide them - most unusual. I looked for the article when I woke just now, but found another admin had finally got around to deleting it, which doesn't really surprise me. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting but stupid. It appears that he was hired by someone who hired him without knowing that he knew anything about Wikipedia, and that now he has gone away. Well, in that case, he needed to go away. Neither he nor his customer knew what they were doing. Hmmm. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am always willing to do my best to help and support new, inexperienced editors, just as you are, but I don't believe anyone accepting money to create content here can expect us to molly-coddle them through their learning or incompetence phase. They should have addressed that long before they thought they could get paid for us doing their work for them. I've created and managed a number of websites over the last two decades, but would never pretend I knew the skills well enough to con people out of their cash by offering my services, and then expect others to do my work for them (and get rude and insuting about it in the process). Quite amusing really. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I find this conversation very interesting. It's like watching a movie, but only reading the subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmanning986 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Online Source

Hi Nick,

I hope this message finds you well and in good spirit.

I have a question concerning the appropriateness of a source which I would like to use.

This is the link to the online source: https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/the-little-museum-of-dublin

Nick, I would love you to visit my user page, which describes in more detail why I am reaching out to you regarding this issue.

I look forward to hear from you.

Sincerely, Wiilkenson (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wiilkenson: Thanks for asking. I wasn't familiar with this Google project. I would certainly want to use it with great care, as it's clear that some content is provided by legitimate cultural organisations, but that others is provided by unspecified third party sources, including Wikipedia itself. I took a look at the section on Joseph Wright of Derby and it's pretty thin, and not all info comes from the organisations (see here). It comes down to context and purpose for which you want to cite something. As a museum person myself, I would be OK to cite my organisation's own website (or even literature I had published through it), providing it supported factual statements about objects within that museum. But I would not have wanted to use that source again and again simply to promote the museum. I certainly would never cite a Google Knowledge panel, which is an algorithmic assemblage of information, not all of which is in any way correct. I would certainly prefer you to cite the museum's own website about objects you want to write about than to a Google-created mashup. But maybe if you let me know the context, I can comment further. If you are in the position of being able to encourage the Dublin-based museum to publish definitive documents on its own website, these can be cited with no concerns over reliability as they will already have had editorial review. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)  
Thanks a lot for your quick response. Your feedback was very helpful indeed. Nick, everything on the Google Cultural Institute's Little Museum page was both provided by and edited by the Little Museum for accuracy. Why is the source problematic in your opinion? I am happy to give you more context: I would like to propose and make changes to already existing articles dealing with notable objects that we have in our collection. This also goes in hand with uploading relevant pictures of our notable objects to related articles. Since we own the pictures, it would not be problematic in terms of copyright, would it? Another thing: To make sure, the Little Book of Dublin itself is appropriate as long as the citation does not appear more than once in the article? It contains solid information on the related objects and is available in print establishing verifiability. Wiilkenson (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wiilkenson: OK, lots of issues here. Firstly, you cannot use images owned by the museum unless they have been clearly and obviously released under a CC-BY-SA licence, permitting commercial reuse. Just giving permission for someone to use an image on Wikipedia is not acceptable. The museum can, if it wishes, create its own account and upload its own photos - but you may not do so unless you own the legal rights to the image. It can, of course, add a Creative Commons licence statement to either its entire website, a single page, or to a single image. You could then capture and upload that image, stating that it is not your own, then linking to the page where it comes from. One of our so called 'OTRS Team' members then assesses the rights and either approves or declines it. Even if that original image were then to have its licence statement changed, the fact that it was previously irrevocably released for reuse is not overridden. I am personally very keen to encourage all museums to consider the merits of making images of objects in their collections available under Creative Commons commercial re-use licence, which allows Wikimedia Commons to accept them. Often, the museum fears it is somehow losing it's commercial control and doesn't want to do that. But I respond by saying that you control the image resolution you release. By making the image freely available for PC use, you still control the higher resolution images which a book publisher needs AND you still own the copyright and have the right to be credited whenever that image is reused under that CC-BY-SA licence - so you get the publicity and visibility that foes with it.
Secondly, linking to 'The Little Book of Dublin' is only OK if it is relevant to an article and is not seen as link spamming - a pitfall I think you fell into previously. Self-published books are less well-regarded than those produced by organisation or commercial publishers, having editorial control. Thirdly: I still urge you to link to the Museum's own material, not stuff that it has 'curated' on a third party site. But give it a try and let me see how a few of your edits might appear. Finally, I was unclear if I was communicating with you as an official member of the museum staff, a volunteer there, or just a keen enthusiastic visitor who wants to see objects in its collections better interpreted. All of these are fine, but it can influence how I advise you. I then noticed your COI declaration that you are an intern at the museum. I think that means you ought to use our WP:PAID declaration, even though your time there might not be remunerated with cash. You still receive some benefits from your involvement there, and especially so if you have been directly encouraged to edit. If you are the author of, or benefit from the sale of the book you're keen to use, that, too, ought to be declared, I feel. None of this is to discourage you - I love seeing Wikipedians assist museums to mobilise knowledge about their collections. If you encounter problem or concerns about image release, I'd be happy to speak with or reply to emails from the relevant official museum staff member to address any concerns he or she might have.  Nick Moyes (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Nick, thank you so much for your help and support. Your quick and detailed feedback is of great help to me! I really appreciate it. I am planning on setting up a section for the museum on Wikimedia Commons. I am interested in uploading definitive documents, i.e. pictures of our museum and objects.
Feel free to let me know what you think, Nick. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts on this as you are an expert on both Wikipedia and museums. Wiilkenson (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wiilkenson: Will you be taking all these images yourself? Or are they from the museum's own collections? This is a crucial distinction. If the latter, it might be best for you to work with the staff member who is authorised to release their images and get them to create a separate account, used just for Wikimedia commons uploads. eg "DubMusFiona" is a unique, non promotional name for one person, which they can include an explanation of their work role and they can make the relevant uploads. Tell me more about how you're thinking of working with them to do this, and I can probably advise as best I can, rather than have to guess all the various permutations of how you might work with them. It would help me to know that they are fully in support of your plans, and give me some idea of the total number of images you're thinking of releasing under a Creative Commons licence. I will just suggest one other thing for you and they to consider. Why not set up a Flickr Account for the museum instead? Then they will have control of which of the images they release (by changing the default Flickr licence per image, per topic or per account). That would than allow you, me or anyone else to select only those images they have chosen to release under a CC-BY-SA licence, and upload those to Wikimedia Commons, whilst others that they wish not to be re-used commercially can be kept as copyright Dublin Museum, and they can't be used on Wikipedia or commercially by anyone. I'm thinking this is a good way to go. The Museum staff can plan and make mass uploads of copyright images, linked to their museum website, then they, alongside you, can change individual images they'd like to see on Commons, and you or anyone else is then free to select the ones needed to illustrate articles. See Wikipedia:FLICKR, plus some helpful advice at WP:REQUESTFLICKR. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

a disruptive user is being disruptive

user:2604:3D09:7287:2600:A54D:53EB:380E:C41D is being disruptive and doing vandalism. I think it might be necessary to block them, although I am just someone looking at recent changes. Firestar9990 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Firestar9990. An important part of monitoring Recent Changes is following up on vandalism. You did the right thing by issuing increasing levels of warnings against vandalism. The important thing is to wait until after your last warning to see if the user continues. That is then the right time to report to WP:AIV. Avoid doing both final warning and reporting at once. I either add the user to my watchlist (or simply keep an extra tab open on their special contributions and refresh it from time to time to see if they've continued. If they have, then go to AIV. Some editors are too keen to both warn and report at the same time, which I just reject at AIV as insufficiently warned, and thus it's waste of an admins time to investigate and turn down, plus a waste of the reporting editor's time if they can't be bothered to follow the procedure and help us work together. But you made the right assessment of vandalism, and I see the IP has now been blocked.
With an IPv6 IP editor, I always look, not only at the single IP contributions, but also display those across what's called 'the /64 range' - this is the range of different IPv6 address one individual user might edit under, without having any control over which addresses their system chooses for them. To see this, in the url at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:7287:2600:A54D:53EB:380E:C41D just add /64 to the end to display this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:7287:2600:A54D:53EB:380E:C41D/64. In this instance the contributions are identical, but that isn't always the case. See here. Try putting /64 on the end of this url to see the difference in one person's contributions. So, do mention at WP:AIV if you've found vandalism from more than one related IPv6 address in the /64 range, so we can then block the entire range, if necessary. You're allowed to tot up the warning across the different addresses within that range and conclude they're not here for good. Hope this helps, and I see another admin has already blocked the IP address you mentioned above. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)  

RE: 20/20 vision

Thanks for letting me know.

I actually selected the color based on the Wikimedia Design Style Guide for accessibility reasons, but it appears to refer to the usage of black text on yellow. I've changed my signature to apply the colourization (as I just look for the color and general shape more that the actual text anyways) through user CSS, so it would appear regularly coloured by anyone who doesn't have my user styles. —Mainframe98 talk 10:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #15

Welcome to the fifteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Variants C and D deployed

Variant D in Portuguese Wikipedia

Variants C and D are two new arrangements of the newcomer homepage. We hope they will increase the number of users using suggested edits. They both make suggested edits the clear place where newcomers should get started on the page. They have some differences in their workflows, because we want to test which design is better. We deployed these variants on October 19; half of newcomers get each variant. After about 5 weeks, we will analyze the data from the tests. The goal is to determine which variant is helping more newcomers to make more suggested edits. We will identify the better variant and then use it with all newcomers.

Concept A for add a link.

As we discussed in previous newsletters, the team is working on our first "structured task": the "add a link" task. After community discussion on design ideas, we ran user tests on the mobile designs. We decided on the design concept we want to use moving forward: Concept A. We're now engineering the backend for this feature. Next, we will be running user tests for desktop designs.

Learn more about the findings.

Community news

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Moyes/Archive_13&oldid=1003754543"