Jump to content

User talk:RoySmith/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Request on 14:25:17, 23 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Maex 789


Hi I am not linked to Artivatic. I found this article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Computer_science,_computing,_and_Internet and thought to writing and it was deleted earlier citing as lack of resources as i was first timer. I thought to wait to see if there was new evidences so thought to create page again with better evidences available through reputed journals, media and books. Do review about artivatic and request for necessary edit if you like and then approve the same.

Maex 789 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The first version of the article was deleted, not for "lack of resources", but because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The current draft doesn't seem any better. To be blunt, given that in two years, the only thing you've found to write about is this company, it is difficult to believe that you have no relationship with them. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

OPEN Community

sir, you declined my draft of open community.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OPEN_Community this is the url. sir, it would be of great help if you could tell me where i am lacking in simple words. thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to find sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. Github is user generated content, so it's not a good source. You cited the organizations own website several times; that's not a good source either because it's not independent. You also cited Wikiversity, which is also WP:UGC, and thus not a WP:RS. Please take a look at WP:NCORP#How to apply the criteria for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir, i have added new references. It would be very helpful for me if you'll tell me if they are fine now? Thank you sir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OPEN_Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody else can re-review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Degica

I'm afraid I still don't follow the comments on Degica's deletion. None of the pages I mentioned (Sekai Project, MangaGamer and Nicalis) seem much more well cited? Like most of Sekai Project's are just Steam links, while most of MangaGamer's are to their own site anyway. Malincia (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degica. Please take a look at WP:NCORP, which explains what we need for an article about a company. The fact that there are other pages which exist, but don't meet our standards, is immaterial. There's lots of bad pages in the encyclopedia which just haven't been cleaned up yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You might want to see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-13

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

  • The new version of the content translation tool will be used for all new translations. The older version will still be used for translations that were started with it. Most users won’t see any change. More than 80% of the published translations are already using the new version. [1]

Problems

  • There was a problem with editing with Safari on iOS. When you wrote an edit summary you couldn't save the edit. This has now been fixed. [2]
  • The editing toolbar sometimes disappears when you scroll on iOS devices. This will be fixed soon. [3]
  • Wikis can over-ride interface messages on-wiki. A problem meant that sometimes an old versions of any changed messages were shown instead. This included the sitenotice and other important parts of the interface. This was fixed at around 2019-03-22 16:00 (UTC). Logged-out users may still get the wrong message. Purging the page should fix it for them. [4]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The AFD page today

Not sure what happened here-it looks like none of the AFD's people have done for the past hour have shown up. (There was one on the top if you look at the edit history that disappeared. And then ones people started have yet to go on there (like I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alguien se acerca which has yet to show up). Wgolf (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a bot did fix it, though there is one on the bottom of the AFD page still, well we will see if it gets fixed. Wgolf (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure this was the best place to ask about that. Maybe WP:PUMPTECH or WT:AFD would be more useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-14

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

Changes later this week

  • Notifications tell you about things that happen on the wiki. You can turn on notifications about new links to pages you created. For performance reasons you can no longer get e-mails about this. [5]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019

April 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thursday April 4 and Friday April 5: Translat-a-thon NYC 2019 @ LaGuardia Community College

Translat-a-thon NYC 2019 @ LaGuardia Community College is hosting the second annual Wikipedia Translatathon! At this event on Thursday evening and during the day Friday this week, anyone from the public is invited to LaGuardia to join students, professors, and CUNY faculty in translating Wikipedia articles among any languages which attendees understand. Themes for this event include public health and the history of New York City.

New York City has a large immigrant population and great diversity of speakers of various languages. Among all schools in New York City, LaGuardia has the highest percentage of immigrant students, the highest percentage of students who speak a language other than English as their first language, and the greatest representation of language diversity. It is a strength of LaGuardia that it can present "Wikipedia translatathons", which are Wikipedia translation events.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Brownhills West (Midland Railway) railway station

Would you consider changing your close of the AfD for Brownhills West (Midland Railway) railway station to delete? The reason is that there is nothing to merge as the article is entirely unreferenced - it's basically a hoax although perhaps created by making erroneous assumptions rather than an attempt to deliberately mislead. A redirect from this title would therefore be misleading. If you don't want to change the close please just merge nothing and delete the redirect.----Pontificalibus 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think your close of the discussion was an inaccurate summary at best. Your call on deletion to "leave that decision up to whoever does the merge" is extraordinary. I remind you that ordinary editors do not have the power to delete pages. The whole purpose of AFD is to request an action that only administrators can perform. Your claim that there was no discussion on whether or not to leave a redirect is not correct. I certainly explicitly commented on that; "I don't think there is a need to keep the page for attribution reasons, it can be deleted after merging". What there is a consensus for is that a station of that name never existed on the Midland Railway. Do you really think it is a good call to leave in place a redirect that implies that it does? SpinningSpark 07:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thank you for your notes. Re-reading the AfD, I don't think my original merge close was unreasonable. More than one person argued for a merge, and given a close call between delete and merge, I tend to lean towards merge, per WP:ATD. Spinningspark, I'm particularly confused by your objection. You are the one who wanted a merge and delete. But, now you're upset that I left that option open? Yes, I understand that non-admins can't execute the delete. But, they can do the merge, and then tag the article for WP:G6. Oddly enough, I don't see this G6 use case listed under WP:G6, but it is listed in Twinkle's CSD menu.
I didn't say there was no discussion about the redirect. I said there was no substantive discussion. Yes, you said, I don't think there is a need to keep the page for attribution reasons. That's a far cry from, I think it's important to delete this instead of redirecting. We generally redirect after a merge unless there's some strong reason not to (WP:CV, WP:BLP, etc). Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and are basically a navigation aid, which don't imply anything about the existence or non-existence of something. Anyway, it seems like the simplest thing would be for you to just perform the merge you suggested, and then G6 tag the remaining article if you don't want a redirect to remain after you finish your merge. Cite the AfD close and this discussion. I don't see any problem there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, the page was deleted this morning (UTC) by another editor so the point is now moot. SpinningSpark 14:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Degica

Hello! I have noticed an article you deleted on AfD, Degica, has been recreated at Degica games. Not sure if it is applicable for G4 (I tagged it) so i thought I would call you up here. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Looks like it's been deleted already. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

cross-wiki import

re: your note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Setswana medical terms. The author appears to have done a cut and paste instead of Special:Import which preserves the edit history. Usually, we request that the page be temporarily moved to userspace.[6] This is just an fyi. For a sole author page it doesn't much matter, and is not worth the bother. --mikeu talk 23:52, 6 April 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)

Tech News: 2019-15

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

Problems

  • You will be able read but not edit most wikis for 30 minutes on 11 April at 05:00 (UTC). This is because of a hardware problem. You can see a list of the affected wikis. [9]
  • A map update caused some problems on 29 March and 30 March. It was rolled back. [10]
  • Pages on some Wikivoyages had problems with the top headline. This has been fixed. [11]

Changes later this week

  • When you add an edit summary the VisualEditor will search your recent edit summaries in case you want to re-use one. This works in both the visual and wikitext modes on desktop. It also works on the mobile site. [12]
  • The Wikimedia wikis will get a URL shortener. This will work from 11 April. You can read more. [13]
  • Advanced item The {{REVISIONID}} magic word will no longer work. This is for performance reasons. When you preview a page it will return "" (empty string). When you read a page it will return "-" (dash). For now this will only affect content namespaces. [14]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 April. It will be on all wikis from 11 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 10 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You will be able to preview references. This means that when you hover over the link you will get a popup that shows you a preview of the reference. It will work much like page previews. This is so you don't have to go to the bottom of the page to see a reference. This will now be available as a beta feature on German and Arabic Wikipedia. [15][16]
  • Advanced item The Wikidata JSON output will change. Empty containers will be serialised as empty objects. This is a breaking change that will affect tools that use JSON outputs and APIs. It will happen on 30 April. You can read more and see how to test your code.

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

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Gucci Flip Flops

Now I'm not one to go ranting off to DRV, but you wrote "I have come to the conclusion that, while the keep arguments are more numerous, they are not supported by policy, while the delete arguments are". That is not true, as I gave a clear link to policy in my !keep vote. I have created at least three articles in the past year, The Witch's Promise, House of the King and Life's a Long Song using WP:NSONG #1 as a key reason to do so (I notice all three, by complete co-incidence, have an opening edit summary approximating "I can't believe we didn't have an article on this"). I think this should have been closed as "no consensus"; indeed, I was going to close the AfD as that earlier, but decided I would rather give my view instead. It also explains why I haven't expanded the article with sources, as I haven't had time - which explains why I didn't say that sources such as Billboard have described Bhad Bhabie as "the Gucci Flip Flops" rapper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But, WP:NSONG says, Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. That's similar wording to all the WP:SNG's. NSONG is a hint. The use of words like, suggest and may be notable mean that you still need to back it up with sources if challenged, per WP:NRV. Also, WP:V is policy. WP:NSONG is not. If you wish to take this to DRV, I have no objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in. I had a question I was hoping either of you might take a minute to opine on. It seemed to me the three songs I nominated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Flip Flops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Bich and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux all had the same level of charting/certification, roughly the same RS coverage, and the same AfD !votes and arguments (almost all from the same participants), but they were closed in different ways. I'm not saying any of these closes was correct/incorrect, and I may be incorrect in viewing these three as "the same"–there may be reason to treat them differently–but I'm wondering if DRVs ever get bundled like this? If one of these closes is taken to DRV, can/should the others? Or if one is overturned/endorsed at DRV, is it allowable to take the others to DRV, or would that have an effect on the "correctness" of the other closes? I've also been nominating a good number of FOOTY bios that I also see as "the same" which have been closed with largely-but-not-100%-consistent results, and those perceived inconsistencies raised the same questions for me. To be clear: I'm not arguing about any particular close, but asking a general question about whether these are "the same" and if so, how that's handled when they're closed differently or taken to DRV. Thank you. Leviv ich 16:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: As I said, my original closing rationale, which I had typed up and ready to hit "Publish changes" was "The result was no consensus. If the notability is still challenged, I would recommend a redirect to Bhad Bhabie#Discography", but I decided to !vote "keep" per Sergecross73's reasons instead. In a nutshell, not all Billboard charting songs have articles; some, like Joy Division Oven Gloves, are redirects. But I don't believe I've ever seen an instance of a Hot 100 hit actually be deleted instead of redirected. And even in the case of songs that were never singles and clearly fail WP:GNG, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea, they get turned into redirects. That you cite that three AfDs on the same policy and guideline problems were closed in different ways does suggest to me that "no consensus" is the route forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333, yes, I saw that "redirect" was one of the outcomes listed at WP:DPR#Common outcomes, and WP:MUSICOUTCOMES says Articles about songs are generally considered not notable, and deleted or redirected. Songs which have been verifiable Top 40 hits generally tend to survive AFD, although not without dissent., and so I mentioned redirect in my nomination statements. My expectation was that the discussion would be about deleting or redirecting, so I'm surprised at the ones that closed "keep" and not "merge with redirect", particularly with the votes that were sheerly "keep per NSONG" because it hit #79, when both NSONG and MUSICOUTCOMES (i.e., global consensus) seemed to rebut, rather than support, that kind of argument. Leviv ich 17:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know why I missed the redirect option. It is clearly preferable to delete. I spent a lot of time researching this and got tunnel vision. I will reclose this later today as redirect. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, an ideal compromise for everybody. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have re-closed this as redirect. As part of my original close, the XFDcloser script also removed some back-links in:

I'm not sure which of those are appropriate to restore, so I'm just going to leave them as is. If somebody who is more familiar with the subject could fix those up as appropriate, I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think any of those need redirects since they either mention Bhad Bhabie or are that target of the redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked through those pages and concur with Ritchie. Thank you both for your time on this! Leviv ich 23:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Aqua Security

Hi Roy,

I submitted an article about Aqua Security and I saw it was deleted for the reason "disambiguous advertising". Firstly, I consulted with a friend and realized I should have added on my user page that I am employed at Aqua. I have done so now, sorry about that. Besides that, is there anywhere I can see the reasoning for the deletion or any community discussion about it? Because I showed my local copy of the article to some Wikipedian friends and they told me the article is not written as an advertisement, and it establishes significant notability.

Can you please provide a link to the community discussion around the Aqua Security deletion, and if there isn't one, can you submit it for discussion please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Not "disambiguous advertising", but "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". There was no community discussion, I deleted it on my own under WP:G11. See also WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I see. Because I think the article was written from a neutral point of view and also establishes notability, I will recreate a draft and submit it for deletion review so it can be reviewed by more editors. I am quite sure anyone who reads the article in detail will see it has substantial information and is a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia. Hedgehog10 13:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Benjamin Parke Avery

Hi RoySmith. Would you please take a look at this draft for me? He is the only U.S. ambassador to China without an article. I'm not really sure what the issue is as he was quite notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following your question. It looks like a draft that still waiting to be reviewed, but you imply there's some sort of issue to be addressed. In any case, this is pretty thin as biographies go. There's no real story here, it's just a random collection of disconnected facts. More specifically, rather than just mention that people wrote about him, tell us what they said. Something like, "Edward Bosqui wrote, ....". And don't just say that he received newspaper coverage, tell us what the papers said about him. Overall, looking at WP:BIO, he probably doesn't meet the requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

VOA Block on FIFAukr

Hi!

The unusual account of FIFAukr (talk · contribs) appeared on an AfD that I participated in and I noticed that that user is now indefinitely blocked for being a Vandalism-only account. I looked at the user's edits though and while they were incredibly suspicious ("Wikipedian since 2014" on user page, !votes on several AfDs and only a few actual content edits), I do not see how it is explicitly vandalism-only.

Could you clarify? This is mostly just for my understanding. Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We've seen this pattern repeatedly. A brand new account pops up and immediately starts posting fundamentally meaningless comments to various AfDs. There's no logical explanation for it other than vandalism. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that such behavior would be mindless vandalism, this user's posts don't actually seem to be entirely meaningless. Aside from the 7 or so AfD !votes which are just agreements with previous posts, there are also four valid contributions (demonstrating a high number of citations, low h-index lookup, comment based on source added to article, finding an Al Jazeera interview of the subject towards meeting GNG). None of the other edits are actually vandalism.

The user's activity is certainly very strange and deserving of investigation, no doubt, but I don't think the reason for the block matches the crime here. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate new users don't find their way to AfD first thing. WP:AGF has limits. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, the user's quickness to go to AfD is certainly unusual and alarming. But when there is no actual track record of disruptive editing, good faith has to be assumed. None of their edits were vandalism or disruptive. Without any other evidence, this could be a WP:CLEANSTART for all we know. It's alarming to see a user blocked without any warning or attempt to communicate when the actual edits have not demonstrated a clear pattern of being disruption-only. In terms of blocking procedure, it just seems a little undue to assume bad faith when there is only weak circumstantial evidence. — MarkH21 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Let them appeal. My job is to protect the project from disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, they can appeal but that's not my point. I wanted to understand why this block happened in the first place and I'm more firmly of the opinion now that it was somewhat improper. It might be more likely than not that they are here for bad reasons and it might be likely that they'll never appeal this block (although a block message on their talk page might help them find that process if they should want to), but I'm just saying that the evidence to make this block was both weak and circumstantial and I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

I, along with many others, do appreciate the work you do here! Just hasty block in my opinion, don't take it the wrong way :) — MarkH21 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I am hesitant to specifically list all the clues I picked up on (for the same reason that Google doesn't published their ranking algorithms). But, my attention was attracted first by their participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo Conner, which had already been marred by socking. Then, the statement on their user page, "Wikipedian since 2014. FC Shakhtar fan since 2004." this seems like just enough to make it seem legit, without actually saying anything useful. If they've been a wikipedian since 2014, they could have explained why they've got a new account. Did they lose the password to their old one? Many other clues, but suffice it to say this failed the sniff test in a sufficiently strong manner that I felt my action was justified. I can see you picked up on some of this yourself, since you talk about this being an "unusual account", and being, "incredibly suspicious", and their actions being, "unusual and alarming". -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:AN#Review my block of User:FIFAukr -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-16

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

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 April. It will be on all wikis from 18 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 17 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Sillman

hello mr roysmith. I see your note about resubmit and three sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Sillman I listed best three sources. https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/10/01/daniel-sillman-relevents-29-year-old-ceo-has-bold.html https://www.michigandaily.com/section/soccer/michigan-alum-mission-popularize-soccer-states/ https://www.forbes.com/profile/daniel-sillman/#2d460b6b3fbb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalddiazzih (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your help! Vivita123 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about Candelario Obeso? But, how come User:Peripatetic got a cookie and I only got a cup of coffee? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Shelling without prior comm

Dear Roy,

Greetings!

In the future, if it's possible, would you mind sending a communication to me about an imminent Rcat shell shelling, as I'm a friendly not a problem editor, and, I have to tell you this, it doesn't feel good to be shelled in such a way, it makes me feel you were simply attempting to eliminate me in addition to the article.

Thanks man.

Sederecarinae (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sederecarinae, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I'm not following, however. Could you provide a link to a particular edit I made, to help me understand the issue? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah

Roy Smith, this is a belated thank you for your insights on the deletion of the page on Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April#11_April_2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:8200:2DBB:F096:2FD7:5357:28F6 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-17

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

  • The advanced search function URL now shows which namespaces you search in. The namespace field is collapsed by default on the search page. You can also add new fields to the search interface through a hook. [19][20][21]
  • The wikis now look slightly different in the mobile web version. [22]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Wikipedia articles will have the sameAs meta property. It adds structured data. This makes it easier for search engines to find Wikipedia articles. It also makes it easier to reuse content. There will an A/B test. [23][24]

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

19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your comment regarding number of references on Draft: Red Circle Authors

Hi RoySmith, thank you for leaving a comment on Draft:Red Circle Authors. This is my first article and I have been wondering what to do so getting a comment is really helpful, especially an actionable one! Following various edits and help from others to make the article's text more suitable I added more references as I was told previously there were not enough and more is better.

Nonetheless, I understand that it is time consuming to review them. To show that this publisher is notable and has not been mentioned just in passing by one major publication/news source I would like to point you to three references:

1) The Japan Times, Japan’s oldest and most important English language newspaper (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2018/12/22/books/red-circle-authors-sending-japanese-literature-westward/) - ref No. 2. They ran a full feature on Red Circle Authors;

2) An article that cites the publisher in the Nikkei Asia Review (owner of the FT) (https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Arts/Bull-market-in-bungaku-highlights-Japanese-literary-revival) ref No. 6 that says Red Circle Authors is "an ambitious publishing venture"and;

3): an article in the publishing industry magazine (Publishing Perspectives) linked to the world’s largest international book fair, written by the former President of the International Publishers Association (IPA), citing Red Circle Authors as a publisher that other publishers should take a look at. ref No 3. (https://publishingperspectives.com/2019/02/richard-charkin-nine-lessons-from-an-indie-publisher/).

These three examples, I think, indicate that this new publisher is notable. The third one is more of a passing reference but given who, where, and how it is referenced I feel it also shows the publisher is notable and worthy of attention. Another longer discussion of the publisher and its books can be found in ref 23 (https://www.popmatters.com/books-red-circle-minis-2630072908.html). If you wish to review another after looking at these three, I would suggest this one.

There are also several in Japanese by major Japanese news publications (Kyodo and Mainichi Shimbun) which are obviously much harder to review. I hope this reply is appropriate & helpful, and apologies for its length --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiRoySmith, for you additional comments. I can continue adding more references to this as there are many. I think, however, this is not the main issue now. I and others have edited it to remove/reduce the promotional tone. We can remove the sentence "Commentators and reviewers said after their publications that the approach taken was "not about resizing big books into small objects, but rather about celebrating textual brevity in book form itself" [23] [24]something that Japan has a long tradition of[25]" would that be enough? Do you have any other suggestions of how to follow up to 1) improve and 2) get a review of the Japanese sources if that is really required? WikiGeoffrey —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan to see if you can find any additional reviewers. At this point, I'll step back and let others give their input. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have taken your advice and left them a post on their page. I had wanted to point you to other references (The Complete Review Not 17, 20 etc) which one Wiki Editor said was good, and a new one, since their review, No 24 from Books and Bao - also completely unconnected). Last time round the feedback from other Wiki editors was the tone was fine but more references were required. As you point out many have now been added. Understand that you are stepping back and I need to find other reviews. Thank you again for the feedback. --WikiGeoffrey —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


Tech News: 2019-18

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

  • The Wikipedia app for Android now invites users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. [25][26]

Problems

  • Tech News was late last week because of a MassMessage bug. Other newsletters had the same problem. [27]

Changes later this week

  • You will see when you last refreshed the recent changes page. This is so you can see how recent the changes are. [28]
  • When you write a comment in Structured Discussions but have not posted it yet your web browser will save it in local storage instead of session storage. This means you do not lose them even if you close your web browser. Structured Discussions used to be called Flow. [29]
  • You will be able to turn off milestone notifications. Milestone notifications congratulate you when you have made certain numbers of edits. [30]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Advanced item The Wikidata wb_terms table will be dropped. This will affect some Wikidata tools. They need to be updated. The table has become too big which is causing problems. This will happen on 29 May. You can read more. You can ask for help if you need it.
  • Advanced item Wikimedia wikis will soon use a token when you log out. This changes how the API works. Some tools might need to be updated. [31]

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

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Since you are stating that you belive the community endorses you blindly blocking any new user who shows up at AFD, regardless of whether you have any idea who they are a sock of, or that they are indeed a sock and not a clean start or some other type of good faith user, I suppose I need to remind you of this discussion, at the conclusion of which you indicated that you understood that this was not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chasten Buttigieg

I'm curious if you could share your rationale for choosing "redirect" as the closing result of the Articles for Deletion conversation related to Chasten Buttigieg. This was the first AfD conversation I've taken part in and I found it really interesting to see the number of people engaged in the conversation and that various viewpoints on different sides of the debate, but find myself leaving curious what arguments ended up carrying the day - both to make me a better contributor to Wikipedia, but also to increase my faith and interest in participating in future AfD discussions. Mackmo (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am also wondering how you (RoySmith) arrived at a clear consensus for redirecting, given both the (roughly equal) quantity on each side and the quality of various comments. I am struggling to understand how this could be closed any other way than "no consensus". Notably, at least three redirect comment were not soundly based on policy. The keep arguments on the other hand cited applicable policy and numerous sources to support their arguments.- MrX 🖋 02:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Basically, those arguing to keep were saying he's notable on his own, independent of his husband. Those arguing to delete and/or redirect were saying that, despite the existence of good sources, any notability is due to his relationship to Pete. These are both reasonable points of view, and making these judgement calls is within the scope of what discussants at AfD are free to do. Thus, I largely fell back to weight of numbers, which were running about 3:2 in favor of redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Roy. I agree that there were reasonable interpretations of policies on all sides of the discussion, and hopefully we can agree that some arguments were weak. However, there was not 3:2 ratio (66.7%) in favor of redirect. Byn the numbers, there were 8 Keep: (Legacypac, MrX, My very best wishes, Mackmo, Coffeeandcrumbs, Thsmi002, Moncrief, Broccoli & Coffee); 9 Redirect: (Atsme, Banana Republic, Bearcat, Tataral, Pawnkingthree, Trekker, MONGO, Sandals1, The Gnome); and 2 Delete: (Tedfitzy, Ivar the Boneful). Thus, the ratio of Redirect to Keep is 9:8 (52.9%). Even if you count the delete votes as redirect votes, the ratio would be 11:8 (57.8%), which is closer to 50% than 66.7%, and hardly a consensus. Would you consider changing your closing of this AfD to 'no consensus'?- MrX 🖋 11:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I lumped delete and redirect together into variations on do not keep. And, as much as this isn't about vote counting, I went back and re-counted :-) In your count, you missed Jason A. Quest's argument to redirect, so we're back to 12:8, which I think is a reasonable total on which to declare a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not going to contest it any further.- MrX 🖋 16:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'm always happy to discuss these things. And, I do acknowledge that this was a close call. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_22&oldid=1211814572"