Jump to content

User talk:Otr500/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Organization of Iranian American Communities. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the template. Being that I am a human I am not as fast as a bot and was in the process of restoring the said AFD notice when the article was reverted. I then re-reverted per policies and guidelines, and was editing to replace the template when it was added back and I received this warning. There may be another way to follow consensus to perform this task while at the same time adding the template to the restored article but I was not (and still not) aware of any process. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Just pinging the owner to make sure he/she reads your response @Cyberbot I: WhisperToMe (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Two AFDs

Hey, I just realised that I pinged you at an AFD at like 5 min later took the same stance as you at a different AFD. This is just to let you know that I checked your contributions, because I wanted to see whether you are active, and for some reason clicked the second AFD. My input is genuine and this is not supposed to be some kind of favour trading or whatsoever. wikitigresito (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I sometimes check profiles also. I will have to look at the AFD's you are referring to as you did not provide the names or links. Otr500 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping because I note that maintenance edits I made were "edited out". Two editors, one a SPA and one with two areas in five years (hitting this one hard now), seems to be steering the article. "If it stays it will need protections and over-site. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Nextdoor AfD

Hi,

I saw you wrote a long post on the Nextdoor AfD about that question concerning a paid editor doing direct edits during an AfC. I am the COI editor and I didn't write that question or participate in that discussion. Someone else noticed that after the AfD I wrote a substantial update in a sandbox and listed the proposed the changes on Talk. To the extent that discussion was a waste of your time, I am sorry. But in that specific instance, you weren't engaging with a paid editor, as it might have seemed. Thanks -BC1278 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert: Gun control

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merely a formality, since it doesn't appear that you've been notified lately. Please note that DS also encompasses discussions relating to the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is neither civil nor entirely factual. Do not mock other editors or personalize disagreements. Consider yourself warned. –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agriculture in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manzanillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Update to Wiki Page for Mia Khalifa

Good morning Otr!

Sorry to trouble you, and I apologize in advance if I am asking out of turn. I posted some prospective edits to Mia Khalifa's page. Would you be able to review them, or provide a timetable for review? I'm very new at this, and her's is the first page I've attempted to edit that is "semi-protected". I saw you posted some updates on the "Talk" page for her, so I thought you would be able to help with the edits. Thank you in advance for any assistance or insight!

-John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndo223 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Good morning John. To state the truth: This is not an article in my area of editing preferences but I perform maintenance on all kinds of articles. It passed a GA review by @Midnightblueowl: in 2016 and I would have to look at the history to see if it has since degraded. On a quick look there are several things that I do not care for starting with referencing in the lead. The lead is a summary of the content in the body of the article and as such I feel can be left uncluttered if the article is summarized in the lead, suitably referenced in the body, and this is even more of a criteria for me on a GA article that is also a BLP. The reference to Adult film database is listed as an external link, I think not generally accepted as a reference but I would have to check, but certainly not used as a reference --- and an external link. The reference to her "webcam modeling" is questionable being Howareyoubb (.com) and contributed by a pretty much anonymous author, Sarah G that professes to be a "fulltime webcam girl", and it would be considered a primary source. She was and likely still is an internet celebrity and a porn star but any current and continuing webcam "modeling" (catchy name for it) is questioned because one site shows her last active 2017-07-20. There is no doubt she "was" a "webcam personality" (I have a different definition of "modeling") so inclusion in the lead could be reworded, to be accurate either current or past, instead of being deleted but I agree it appears outdated.
The short of it is that I pinged the reviewer to see if there is any interest but other than giving advice probably not going to edit the article. I do appreciate your contacting me and would suggest editing to reach the required amount to be auto-confirmed with articles like this on your "list" of things to do. You also might want to spread editing interests around. Have a great day, Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The page could always be reverted to its GA-rated variant if it has degraded since that time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments considered at ANI

Extended content

I almost wanted to add comments to an ANI as what I saw as an editors blantant disregard of Wikipedia and consensus policy, and an apparent agenda, but it was too long (the added comments), even though appropriate considering the need of many in society to "right all the great wrongs" in history, so I just let it go. I was also fairly sure a block would result anyway. There is some validity in the direction of thinking should someone care to read, and so I can look back as being related to directions Wikipedia can take" if we are not prudent.

  • Honor apparent self-demand for indef block: To me the defiant loquacity above could only seem more darkly comical if a similar ideology was used in an older language and read with an eloquent British accent.
Know ye not that thou art all wrong save me. Thou doest threaten me to no avail as surely "I will continue to expose such systemic and instituional (sic) biases as they occur, threatning (sic) blocks are ineffective and unecesssary (sic)", because I shall not falter and stay the course. Possibly a little over-dramatic but as I read the above comments I was amazed at what I perceive as brazen audacity. There was just a hint of an ability to reform but that was lost further on. Someone seemingly not knowing, or caring to know, that a listed agenda (even while claiming none), such as "an initiative to create and improve information about black culture and history on Wikipedia" is a very good thing. It can just as easily come across as misguided and biased when someone ignores consensus and collaboration, with what seems to be a need or want to paint a certain picture no matter what.

As I thought about the implications of editors set on an agenda to "Right Great Wrongs" I considered the entire realm of great wrongs.


  • Comments (read, skip, or collapse): Humans have been involved in slavery since the beginning of mankind but per comments above it seems assuredly a goal to right great wrongs. To me slavery was a "primal wound of the American republic" but this "practice" was not dreamed up in America. It was "inherited", if you will, from those whose forefathers from across the seas thought it normal, because a slave was, after all, just property to be worked, bought and sold, or whatever, because they were considered "inferior" and maybe not "human". To try to paint one of a certain of societies heros as villainous, because they were among those involved in a great wrong, is inherently wrong. We can try to rewrite history, trying to blot out ties to slavery, try to insist that is was such an important "wrong" that any involvement be proclaimed at first instant in the opening lead sentence, or realize it was a wrong that was finally brought to an end. We can be embarrassed, try to hide it, try to criminalize any that might have been associated with it, tear down any statues of someone associated with it, fight to get a great historical mountain monument blown up (yes, the one that includes slave owners), or realize that this country finally came around and righted a wrong, that ultimately ended up with the election of black President. Should we now have a lottery to "vote in" each of the ethnic representations of our country, to be fair, regardless of any political agenda? That would be horrible. I suppose I would have to vote for Native American women (well, women whose ancestors for more than a quarter of a century were born in the US, right?), and Native American Indians, be at the top of the list. It would be insane to attempt this just to achieve a milestone or "correct some historical abuse", at the possible expense of the degradation of our society. i think we should vote on the presumption of who is best qualified for the office regardless sex or ethnicity, or any other thing such as past ancestral slave "ownership".
I have read that Ben Affleck's family owned slaves and it was a great embarrassment when he found out and tried to hide it. I have read that Obama's paternal ancestry included those that were slaves, and that some of those on his maternal side were slave owners. "If" society is going to be fair, and villainize the "sins of our ancestors", are we to attempt to bury the history of our first black President as guilty by association? Should we be more proud that our society finally admitted an error and corrected it? It is part of the history of the US (as well as the world) to be documented, but as history not some biased agenda. The holocaust could be considered among the greatest of "great wrongs" but should we cover it up as some try to do because a growing world population is against Jews? The Japanese: They were many times US citizens thrown into US "jails" (camps) solely because of their ancestors. We had Jews caged in one area because of their ancestry, and Japanese in the US because of the same thing. Is this not considered a "great wrong" or is all fair in love ---and war? If the war had gone against the US and allies would we have had an attempted extermination in the US just for retaliation? Almost all of us are glad we didn't have to find out the hard way.
It has been said that "those living in glass houses should not throw stones". Lincoln was the "Great emancipator", and a supposed hero to society, but should we also consider him a "male chauvinist pig" of the lowest caliber? He is credited with the words "...all men are created equal..." and "...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.". He finally corrected a wrong in 1862, slaves could vote, and that changed the course of a society. At the same time it could now be argued that he relegated women, in words and actions, to being inferior to a former slave and that the Constitution needs to be rewritten to right this "great wrong". Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 and the 19th Amendment. This was 58 years after their former "property" was allowed the right. I don't think anyone confuses "all men" with meaning anything other than the historical masculin use at the time, and hope future generations continue to feel the same. Did any of Lincoln's ancestors own slaves? I have read that he might have capitulated and maybe was in the camp of "shipping them" somewhere else, maybe back to Africa. I have also read that he, "to avoid war", was hesitant to do anything to "upset the Union", and willing to compromise. That was "the way it was done back then, concerning slavery. If we are going to be fair and "right all wrongs" then let's not forget to include the male chauvinist Lincoln if the monument is considered in correcting "great wrongs". We can villanize him, and forget that "wrongs" were made (the Indians, trail of tears, and attempted extermination of an indigenous race), sometimes monumental "wrongs", sometimes the result of trying to correct another "wrong", in the forming of this nation. As a nation I feel we have grown past the issue of slavery and need to direct our attention to other "great wrongs" while not trying to "change history", or "hide history", but keep it in the context of the era.
We don't need vendettas to correct history, or pick one area to claim a "Great Wrong" to a detriment of history itself. Otr500 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)|}

A Kitten for you!

Thanks man. You did your great job at WP ANI regarding RAW and 205 Live. Resolved. CK (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Per WP:BLPTALK, do not make unsourced claims or allegations about Sarah Jeong or engage in unnecessary negative commentary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

Replying here to your reply. The formatting is just standard on all info boxes nowhere that I know of includes pixel size. Sometimes there is a parameter in the info box - Width that is adjusted. I agree that many of the images seem oversized but this stands out on small stub pages where often the info box is the main info. Stubs may be expanded or if there is insufficient material they may be suitably merged. As for the surplus images this has been an issue for a long time but when someone can be bothered to make a relevant edit it's best not to automatically blank all of them as prev said many pages lack material and the additional images go somewhat to provide more info. There are thousands of pages that could do with attention and I cannot commit to going through all those edits you have made. It would help matters if you were to acknowledge that the inclusion of pixel sizes is not standard anywhere and revert your own edits. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Otr500 - you started off redressing some of your edits by removing pixel size and using width parameter. Your latest edit (cribriform plate) has ignored this? Also when you have changed the info box you haven't addressed the removed images - as pointed out yesterday on small stubs they can be helpful obvious duplicates etc can be removed. And your changing good images for animated is very often not an improvement. It would really help if you could address some of your very many edits. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I had to leave so now you are going to start mass reverting articles that pretty much have been sitting for a long time as if you are now in a hurry. That is fine we will just go another route. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 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)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi Otr500. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Lourdes 17:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Otr500. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fifth-generation jet fighter edit

Hey there. I just came across an edit you made to Fifth-generation jet fighter on Nov 3. I've reverted the addition because that source is nothing more than an amalgam of various other documents, including Wikipedia articles. See, for example, this PAK FA page from the book and compare it to an old diff from the then-PAK FA article on Wikipedia. Just making you aware. These types of publications are popping up more and more frequently, and sometimes without any indication they are taking material from Wiki articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Tabiti

I fully agree with your recent comments. I stumbled into that article based on a link from a sockpuppet report (it was revived by a ridiculously prolific sock puppeteer). I'm confused as to the emotional attachment to an article that so clearly provides no value. I'm not really sure what the underlying motivations are. Squatch347 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue but there must be some underlying reasoning that escapes me. I am also weary of two things, 1)- That AFD is not cleanup when in fact the total entire process of deletion is what? Oh! cleanup. "IF" a certain process is needed to improve Wikipedia then this is a perfect example of when WP:IGNORE is appropriate and a reason WP:HEY has received community consensus and use. 2)- That WP:MERGE is somehow not a part of AFD. Policy shows it is and it is one of the many options provided in the lead of WP:AFD. A duck is a duck and it seems to me only Martians might need a The duck test as some show of proof. What do I know though. Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The primary defender of the article seems to be Orientls. I've had the feeling for a while that this is the same user that ran the account that reactivated this page. Same argument style, some hints of knowing my past edits (I've never run across the account before), that kind of stuff. I'm sure there is some behind the scenes motivation going on there, but maybe that's because I'm hoping this isn't just irrational nonsense. There is no reason to keep that stub otherwise. Squatch347 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

10 keeps that go against policies and/or guidelines does not mean an Admin should close as a head count. I notified the admin showing it was duplicated -- even down to two of the three references -- and he stood by his decision. I could have contested it but just think Admins should follow that we offer !votes according to policies and guidelines and the comments that include those carry (or should) more weight. Anyway, this will be a perennial issue because the notability is tied to the parent article. I have been active in far more AFD's than a lot of editors with a very high percentage of closings in the direction I !vote. There have only been like 5 or 6 where I wondered what planet the closer dropped in from-- so I think that is excelent. The RFC can be listed other places too. Have a good one and MERRY CHRISTMAS. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And it just goes around and around and around. I really have no idea why anyone would be so emotionally invested in keeping a definition page. Anyway, I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas as well. Squatch347 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thank you, and best wishes back at you. At my age 2019 will be joyful if I can have another healthy year. It is 3 am here and I just got off work. My New Years resolution is going to be: No more working this late.

Yo Ho Ho

Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you for your clarification

Thank you for your great recommendations with the Frenn draft! I'm new at this... so learning and I appreciate the constructive criticism.... I've followed your recommendations and updated the draft... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artcontrarian (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Sebastian Thomson

Thanks very much for your feedback on the Sebastian Thomson draft page. The Discogs link has been removed along with related content that I couldn't find sourced elsewhere. The YouTube links have also been replaced with iTunes podcast links or removed entirely along with their related content. I welcome any other input as the page awaits final review and publish. Annettet (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Orientls tried to get me blocked

So Orientls accused me of having a sockpuppet [1]. I honestly have no idea who that character is. I really wonder why he is so emotionally invested in that page. Squatch347 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Reply to Squatch. I did see that. I did not look into the accusations but you "seem" sincere. Attacks can come from many different angles and if this is the case, and you were "attacked" leading to an unjust or unwarranted block there are ways to explore this. Sometimes this results in a boomerrang to the accuser. IF there is credibility the editor (you) can end up shooting themselves. It may be that a "block" could have been preventative to stop issues. I have been threatened with and attacked with attempted blocks, but have never had one. Since I strive for not provoking things to result in one it would be a serious serious issue to me. In that regard I would be an advocate that (if you pursue) things are fairly considered, also considering that you are a newer editor and [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|we don't want to ever run off a potential good one, and may not know the "rules". I have found (with only a couple of incidences in many years) that admins have been fair so don't consider them the "Popo" but a means of checks and balances. This does not mean that mistakes cannot be made. If you are sincere and feel it was a so far successful attack you need to go to the blocking admin and explore this. I do see what can be socks appearing on that article, a desire to have a term propagated by a user with the same name as the article, and IP users "forgetting" to sign their "unnames". Again, I did not investigate and saw on the block you were somehow "connected" to another name. "IF" that is false then you should explore resolution to "clear your name". Again, start with the blocking admin to see how he/she arrived at the decision if you desire to pursue this. I am not advocating, at this time, that you did or did not do anything wrong. The WP:burden, right, wrong, or indifferent, ends up falling on you. If two people get into a proverbial fight and the one that started it calls 911 the police may arrive with the victim being considered the aggressor. The "victim" could be hauled off to jail or both could be arrested. The point is: (pinging) User:Orientls "made the call". There may be justification or it could have been an attack. If the last it will likely be considered egregious and permanent sanctions applied. It could have just been concerns and an admin agreed. I am not a judge or admin just an editor that has been around a good while and end up all over the place on Wikipedia. I also know that we need all the good editors we can get so hope this can be resolved. I hope you see my point. At this time you have brought attention to suspected socks and by the block associated with a sock. I would have to have this resolved on principle but only "you" can prevent forest fires (wrong one) knows you.
  • Notice: PLEASE! please **PLEASE!** (added emphasis for importance) for transparency use links (ping) when mentioning someone as well as when referring to specific links and diffs. If you do not know how to provide diffs then ask or find out but "DO NOT" inappropriately "drop names in a discussion. I am also pinging User:Boing! said Zebedee (just the technical "unblocker") and User:TheSandDoctor (as well as "Orientls" above) for such transparency. I "DO NOT" mind a discussion starting here but this is not actually the place to carry on any investigation. I would state it be initially carried back to your talk page (using pings and links) as that is where you can keep it up if vindicated and anywhere else may get hidden (archived), even by you if it goes south. If so I would need to be "pinged" because I have ADHD and CRS (can't remember shit) so I would need to be reminded. Good luck, Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking back on my initial post to you I should have been more clear. I wasn't specifically looking for you to review or adjudicate. I thought you might find it interesting given that you seem to have had a back and forth with User:Orientls in the past. I had already asked User:TheSandDoctor to review if he could and he was kind enough to provide a more detailed explanation of how he approached it and what happened in detail. I think (and I hope I'm not rushing) it seems to be on track to being resolved towards "clearing my name." Anyway, I wanted to clear it up that I wasn't specifically asking you to look in, just wanted to provide some additional context for you as you approach the Tabiti page. Squatch347 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
And for reasons stated above concerning new editors, fairness, and that I have never liked bullies (no implications just a concern I would champion against) I am glad you made contact. We still must not drop names. My "back and forth" with anyone has not gotten serious. I consider I have a good record on Wikipedia and strive for cooperation and collaboration over edit warring and fighting. If I am attacked a recent editor found I tend to avoid throwing boomerrangs. If something (or someone) becomes a concern or serious I can weigh in and I think be fair so I am glad you did drop me a line. I DO NOT mind being kept up to date either. As far the Tabiti (the link is so anyone, especially me, can follow it easily) article. It was/is a dictionary link, absolutely no doubt, and an unjustified fork so combined there are issues. Concerns, when it was deferred back from AFD, has resulted in attention, just maybe not with true sincerity and an admin will likely see through any smoke screens. I also had concerns that the editor adding it back to article space has the same name as the article, and what could be socks. Too many red flags to just overlook. It is still a fork and branching off many stubs (or barely out of stub ---start-class) could be best served under a "main" article and an admin may agree. There are more names on the main article: Scythian Ares (Greek: Ἄρης) – Ares, Papaios (Παπαῖος) – Zeus, Api (Ἀπί) – Gaia, Oitosyros (Οἰτόσυρος) – Apollo, and Thagimasidas (Θαγιμασάδας) – Poseidon, that someone will likely add dictionary links to in the future. Argimpasa has been expanded but again, why cause unnecessary splits? A local consensus can only override policy (or should) when there is a clear rationale to ignore "the rules". I think the main article still suffers because to expand it would mean recopying content from the new fork "back" to the main article ---or--- the main article remains substandard. The entire process is to get more eyes on a subject and make sure it is followed through. That is my ONLY "agenda" and at the very least it could be a success if the article is kept and expanded. I noticed you reverted recent edits with concerns of sources and that will likely bring more heat. I will look at those, and BRD is certainly a viable option since concerns are raised, just be cautioned in edits, but also don't let any "attacks" stop you from improvements or maintenance. I like verified improvements and not smoke screens. When I can I will look at the article. Otr500 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

RSN comment

Looks like an IP deleted your comment at RSN.[2] Might want to re-add it or I can if you like. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Done.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC

I saw your comment here. Get well and strong again soon! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about USS Charles R. Ware (DD-865)

Back in the mists of time (i.e. 2015), you tagged the article USS Charles R. Ware (DD-865) with a copypaste tag [4] - while the first half of the article is lifted from DANFS, this is a public domain source (published by the US Navy). Was this what you were referring to, or was it another source you were concerned about (it is unclear where the second part of the article was sourced from.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Hello, as you pointed out there is confusion. I remember there were unresolved issues I brought up. There are several possible issues:
  • 1)- Free copying, to incorporate text even with bottom page attribution, does not exempt inline citations but many times it is thought so. This does not even count material copied from one article to another without "edit summary" attribution.
  • 2)- Adding other copyrighted material to an article with a "general" free copyright source noted at the bottom, with an overall lack of inline attribution, is confusing and can create issues. It is hard to differentiate between where "free" content begins and ends.
  • Examples:
Is the "Post-Vietnam and fate" subsection sourced only from Mideast World Cruise or is there also free-sourced material included in the three paragraphs? Does the inline cite only concern the last sentence of the last full paragraph?
I just am not a fan of direct full content copy/paste. To me it degrades Wikipedia and shows a lack of notability of a subject.
If you care to take a look at the above and see no problems (there is no unattributed mix-and-match content) there would be no problem with removing the tag. If you do please add in the edit summary that you found no issues of copyvio. Otr500 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Centerbrook Architects & Planners

Thank you for the feedback on this draft. I have long wrestled with the "notability" for this page. It seems to be a double-edged sword. I had more such content in the original draft but it was rejected as "too PR-like," so I stripped much of it out. But as you point out, if the awards and accomplishments are not there, then how can the subject be "notable"? I have added back some content to address the notability and will hope for the best because I'm not sure how to solve this issue. Justinri (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am somewhat harsh on accepting companies and for profit organizations so I had to scale back some to just commenting. One area I consider is "would an article survive an AFD if approved". I do not like that advertising dollars make their way into an encyclopedia and a push that a couple of sources sometimes are all that is presented on a BLP or related article or maybe more sources that are trivial. Usually I revisit my edit history but recently went back to work after a health issue (worked 11 hours today) so am a little slower than usual.
As far as this article the awards you added do give substance and credibility from my point of view. Issues that I see from a quick look:
  • Ocean House, Rhode Island (unassessed article): The article is about a former hotel that was reconstructed. In that article I somehow missed Centerbrook even being mentioned just "Project architects". One aspect of Wikipedia is the tying together of articles so if reliable sources mention this firm as being a major player in the reconstruction then this should be included there and a link to this article. If there is enough substance then some can be added here. This is especially true if the project earned accolades.
  • Mystic Seaport is a B-class article but "IF" there is sourcing that the building was remodeled and this firm involved then article protectors would have little to complain about with additions as improvements. Again, the article is mentioned here (linked) as a milestone or achievement, but nothing there about any remodeling project.
I could go on but after surviving a heart attack and still putting in a long day I am a little tired to dig too deep. The point is that if there are sources then substance can be added instead of just a mention here that is lacking at the linked article. What you end up with is proof that the firm is notable and this will do away with any PR-like or advertising concerns.
If you decide to look into this then place a note on the talk page that you are actively making improvements and maybe even an "under construction" tag to possible prevent someone from declining the article in the middle of things. "If" you can make some of these improvements with sourcing you will not only prove or disprove notability to yourself but to others as well. Otr500 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I should have transferred this to the article talk page so others can see a discussion of improvements is on-going. If you communicate farther you can transfer this to the talk page and ping me. Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Karrie Keyes

Thank you so much for taking the time to give constructive feedback. I haven’t written many drafts yet so it is extremely helpful. I’ll rework this based on your notes- would you like me to leave you a note or just leave it for another reviewer? Actaudio (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind as I actually go over reviews. Just bear in mind that a main criterion is notability with a focus on if a draft will survive if subjected to AFD. A source can be of poor quality (obscure and even unacceptable), primary, or passing mention, and may even be acceptable as a content reference but not to advance notability. Significant coverage in reliable, published sources will go farther. You might peruse some BLP articles at AFD and read some comments there or even look at some BLP articles at AFC that has comments. This may give you a good idea of what to look for and may help ensure that any articles accepted will remain in article space. I would like to give you accolades. You are registered and could directly create articles and I think this a genuine desire to create better articles. Otr500 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:StealthChat

I understand your comment on my draft and read the explanation on the nobility page. I still have a question regarding another product that appears to be published when it does not have a reliable independent source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monal_(software)? What changes do I need to make if I already have two primary sources with an independent source? Iwanindraprasto (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2019 (PST)

Apparently I missed that one on the list of chats and it has flown under the radar with only a primary blog source. There are likely more on the list and a reason an editor with 53 edits may not be a good candidate for creating articles. Otr500 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Electric Brain

Thanks for your support on Mattsephton's talk page; your sentiments definitely echo mine. And to answer your question, in my dozen years here I've never been blocked. Not yet, anyway! :D sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous inline cleanup tag used

This is now a bit of an older edit, but in November 2017, you did this edit that added {{moreinfo}}. Unfortunately, {{moreinfo}} isn't an inline cleanup template, so I've revised it.

This is just a friendly reminder to use the preview button when adding inline cleanup tags to ensure the output looks like expected. eπi (talk | contribs) 13:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Attrition vs. attribution

You might wanna be careful not to make this particular misprint again. WP:ATTRITION is something quite unrelated to what you are talking about. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks, sometimes being in a hurry results in screw-ups. Otr500 (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otr500/Archive_4&oldid=1048438492"