User talk:Schwede66

User Talk page Sandbox Contributions Rowing Did you know Tools

Schwede66's User Talk Archives

GAN backlog drive

Ok, it would be a bit silly to remove the review you just started - but hold off on any more for another 2.25 hours! It's not October in Wikipedia-land yet! -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll do one at a time; don't worry. As an admin who's looking after the mainpage, I'm fully aware of midnight UTC, Asilvering. I was guided by these words under "Detailed Instructions" (which I shall edit as we should use sentence case): Article reviews started before 30 September but completed after that date can be included. Schwede 66 22:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn, how many people have looked at this page and not noticed the mistake... that should say "October". Thanks for catching it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought it was deliberate and you really meant 30 September! But yes, now that you say it, it makes sense and I see what you are getting at, Asilvering. Schwede 66 22:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Trotter

Hi Schwede, replying to your edit summary. Yes, her common name is Judith Trotter. I was doing your "move a page through a title to create a redirect" trick, knowing that her honour would have been in her full name. I had the intention of then moving to Judith Trotter, before hitting the snag that the existing Judith Trotter page is actually a redirect, and is for the same Judith Trotter. Wasn't sure what I should do at that point and messaged you about it elsewhere! DrThneed (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I’ll sort it. Schwede 66 09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first edit day!

Adr28382 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking urgent assistance in WP:ANI

Heya Just wondering if you could help take a look at this case. An IP address is persisting with wholesale addition of Tamil scripts without consensus nor edit summaries (and displaying identical behaviour to a blocked user). I think it's best to seek urgent intervention on this. Thanks! hundenvonPG (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't hang out at ANI. I reckon there are enough admin eyes looking at the board. Schwede 66 05:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Brian Hastings

On 12 October 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brian Hastings, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fleischmann

Hi Schwede66, thanks for taking a look at my recent contributions. Regarding the above, you have removed the date (year) of birth and rebuked me in your edit summary for including an 'unsourced' DoB, but it is in fact sourced from IPNI and the ref is given at the end of the next sentence (covering all the factual assertions in the first two sentences except information expanded upon and sourced later in the article). Should I add a separate explicit inline ref for the DoB? It felt repetitive to do so but if it's required I apologise for the oversight. YFB ¿ 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yummifruitbat, yes, I reviewed all your recent articles, as you may have noticed. And it'll soon become clear why I did so; just bear with me. Yes, it wasn't clear that the reference at the end of the paragraph covered the year of birth as well. Just revert my edit and add the reference to the infobox, which overcomes the repetition issue. By the way, the correct formatting for the year of birth of a living person is (born 1980) as per MOS:TOPRESENT. Schwede 66 20:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hi again Schwede66, I hope you don't mind that I've moved here to give a longer explanation regarding our interaction at WP:PERM/Autopatrolled. And I'm sorry that this is a long post. I'm offering these comments in the genuine spirit of constructive feedback because I would prefer that other editors don't feel as I did earlier.

Firstly, I think a contributing factor may be a potential gap between the tacit expectations for Autopatrolled, and the criteria expressed in writing. My understanding was that Autopatrolled is fundamentally about reducing the volume at WP:NPP which says, prominently at the top of the page: "There is a very large articles backlog. The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑653 since last week)" - i.e. anything that reduces the load without damaging the encyclopaedia should be welcome. The introduction describes the purpose of NPP:

NPP's first priority is to identify pages with serious content problems—including attack pages, copyright violations, and vandalism—and mark them for speedy deletion. Beyond that, patrollers consider whether articles are suitable for inclusion in their current state according to the relevant policies and guidelines. Articles considered unsuitable are nominated for deletion or, in certain circumstances, moved to the draft namespace for improvement. Articles considered suitable for inclusion are marked as 'reviewed', with a notification sent to the user that created it.

(emphasis added)

i.e. NPP is there primarily to intercept content that is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's reinforced by the overview of the NPP review process which emphasises core 'suitability' questions. It also aligns with the description of the process differences between Autopatrolled and normal users which again emphasises 'check for major problems' as the focus of NPP review.

Then we come to the published criteria for Autopatrolled:

Applicants should regularly demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability.
A suggested standard is the prior creation of 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages.

[... caveat about very new users ...]

(emphasis mine)

I'm recapping all this because NPP and Autopatrolled didn't exist when I was previously quite active on WP, so my understanding of them is based on what I've read in the docs, rather than unwritten community expectations absorbed by osmosis. I can pretty much summarise what I understood from what's written as:

NPP is to intercept / filter out unsuitable content on creation
Autopatrolled is to reduce the backlog volume at NPP by skipping manual review of content added by editors who are trusted only to add 'suitable' content (because they've demonstrated sufficient familiarity with policy)

Notably, the Autopatrolled pages refer to 'clean' articles but don't seem to define what 'clean' means, so I'd assumed we were talking 'free of major issues' as opposed to 'not capable of improvement'. Which brings me onto my experience on requesting Autopatrolled.

My (personal) rationale for requesting Autopatrolled was pretty straightforward:

I've (for whatever reason) decided to try to sort out the rather neglected content on various types of carnivorous plants, starting with Drosera. There are dozens and dozens of redlinked species articles, for starters, and the taxonomic information is in places about 20 years out of date. So I intend to create dozens of new articles over the coming months.
I'm an established (if rusty) editor and I'm familiar with all the major content policies
The majority of content I'm likely to add is in a relatively uncontroversial domain (botany) and the majority of articles on my to-do list are about presumed-notable topics (accepted taxa) - with a handful of BLP relating to people who described or first discovered those taxa (and so are also likely to be fairly uncontroversially notable).
I meet the published article count criteria for Autopatrolled (albeit over a 20 year period with a large gap in the middle - but if that's a problem it doesn't seem to be expressed in the criteria), and none of the articles I've created recently have had any significant issues raised at review.

So I post my request, and after a few hours it becomes obvious that an admin is taking a look at my work (obviously w.r.t. autopatrolled) because a load of pages I've created get edits on my watchlist. Here's what I see in the space of 25 minutes:

"Two empty lines before stub tags, please"
"Stub spacing"
"fixed dashes using User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js, script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM"
"MOS:DATERANGE"
"use convert template so that the required space before SI units is achieved"
"Tidy up; fixed dashes using User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js"
"We must never publish an unreferenced date of birth for a BLP"
"It’s a stub"
"fixed dashes using User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js"

Now of course I (with hindsight and your additional comments) accept that this is just the result of you doing your style fixes in the course of reviewing the content. But from my perspective, what I had expected to invite via my Autopatrolled request was a check that my additions were fundamentally suitable and encyclopaedic. Instead, what I seemed to receive was a stream of unsolicited micro-lectures on various precise details of the MOS, and an (undeserved) rebuke about a BLP violation. As far as I can tell, none of these changes addressed something that was material to the Autopatrolled criteria - but because the review and your applying the changes was obviously triggered from that venue, it felt as though my edit history was being nit-picked over minor style tweaks as a direct result of having posted the request. This is what I meant when I referred to 'tag-bombed' although of course I didn't mean in the literal sense of you having added a load of tags, which you hadn't.

To avoid this in future, and especially when dealing with editors who could be assumed to be essentially competent, it might be preferable to focus only on making/flagging significant changes during your review. Then, if desired, refer the editor to the relevant MOS sections with a comment (at the autopatrolled page or on user talk) that provides the helpful tips but makes clear this isn't a primary focus of the review for autopatrolled. I would add here that the MOS is massive (and much more detailed than I remember it being in 2007...). There's nearly 2000 words just on dashes. I really hope a fingertip command of every style preference isn't mandatory to be considered a worthwhile/trustworthy editor, otherwise I should quit now.

Since you asked what I specifically objected to in your edit summaries, I would highlight "Tidy up" (implying a mess) where your diff was un-bolding two words, adding an extra line break before a stub tag, and an almost-invisible dash edit to the page range in a reference; the obvious and therefore perhaps slightly passive-aggressive "It's a stub" when you downgraded Andreas Fleischmann (without providing any specific feedback on what needed adding/expanding); and "fixed dashes using User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js, script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM" which sounds like a lot of problems but actually consisted of substituting two dashes for ones a pixel or two longer. Taken in isolation none of these is particularly objectionable; getting nine different varieties inside less than half an hour, with no substantive feedback on any of the actual article content, is not especially encouraging.

As mentioned earlier, I also found your reply to my query on this page - specifically this bit: "I reviewed all your recent articles, as you may have noticed. And it'll soon become clear why I did so" - weird and, at least in my reading, patronising. Of course I noticed that you reviewed my recent articles - I literally just said "thanks for taking a look at my recent contributions". It's already clear why you did so - you're an active reviewer of requests for Autopatroller and I just requested Autopatroller. I don't know why you chose this phrasing - rather than, say, "I'm just taking a look at your recent contributions, making some minor fixes as I go, and I'll share some comments at the request page shortly." Again, I know it wasn't intentional, but please see this in the context where you've just picked me up on a variety of style details and incorrectly ticked me off for a BLP vio. To then reply to my comment (where I've already said that I felt 'rebuked') using language that implies I might need help to understand what is happening and why, is in my view condescending. I agree that the substance of our brief conversation about the DoB reference was a normal editor interaction - what made it feel unpleasant for me was the prior context of your edits and edit summaries, plus this particular wording choice. The cumulative effect is worse than the sum of its parts, so to speak.

I had decided at this point that I had clearly misunderstood the expectations for Autopatrolled. Rather than being based on whether new articles I'd created were 'valid' or 'suitable', it seemed to be based on whether they were 'free of minor formatting errors'. So I returned to the request page to withdraw my request. While I was doing so, you posted your review commentary (so there was an edit conflict and my withdrawal was posted after you'd already declined the request). I'm afraid that the way you wrote up your assessment compounded my sense of having been belittled.

You stated: "The expectation is that articles by autopatrolled editors are clean and don't need attention by others. However, that's not the case for the stubs that you produce, with recurrent issues being lack of categories, tagging for single source or orphan status, DEFAULTSORT missing for bios, and a variety of WP:MOS issues."

(emphasis mine)

Taking each of the highlighted phrases in turn:

I'm not sure it is fair to characterise my contributions as generally having 'needed' attention by others. None of my created articles had any policy/suitability issues flagged at review. The only changes that were made by reviewers were things from the 'optional' phase of review like adding categories - nothing that reflected negatively on the suitability, accuracy or quality of what I'd written. Everything I have submitted was written in decent grammatical English and appropriately referenced. In several cases, a reviewer did something that I was already in the process of doing myself - for example finding the right categories to add, or tagging an orphan before I'd had a chance to add the relevant links. Those are in my view not things that needed doing by an NPP reviewer to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia.

The stubs that you produce seems to me to carry an implicit judgement (as though I am only capable of spamming the encyclopaedia with minimally-useful content). Not all of my contributions have been stubs; where I have added a stub I have acknowledged that fact in the edit summary; and the criteria for autopatrolled make no mention of a size/completeness threshold for articles in any case. Based on your review of my contribs, I imagine you have seen that I am working (in userspace so as not to add updates that are inconsistent with the rest of the article) on a complete clean-sheet re-write of Taxonomy of Drosera which already has nearly 30 references. Once I've got that into a decent state and cleaned up the associated info in the Drosera and associated subgenus / section pages, it is my intention to systematically de-stub the species articles. But my preference is to create them as stubs first. If you didn't intend to highlight stubbiness as a perjorative, you could have just said "the articles" or "the content" rather than "the stubs".

recurrent issues implies that I have paid no attention to reviewer tweaks and kept committing the same 'offences'. But actually most of the issues you highlight weren't particularly recurrent. Only one article was tagged for single source (and I had fixed that within two hours). The majority had categories on creation, or were tagged / categories added by reviewers within minutes of initial submission while I was making a different edit. A couple were tagged as orphans before I'd had a chance to de-orphan them myself. On this last point, I've tended (and believed it was preferable) to create an article before linking to it rather than create a proliferation of redlinks - I'm happy to revise that approach if it's not preferred.

Lastly, you've said in your response to my comments on the request page, that "I have not commented on dashes or date formats above, and in fact, I don't think I ever have as part of a review. I do not consider that relevant to autopatrolled flags." In that case, I am unclear what you mean by "a variety of WP:MOS issues", because with the exception of dashes and date formats and some missing linebreaks before stub tags that you fixed, the only other style edits I can spot by reviewers have been removing a capital letter, inserting a linebreak after a tag, and adding a 'References' heading before the autogenerated reflist. These all seem to be trivial formatting points. If you don't consider them relevant to autopatrolled, why did you bring them up as part of your reasoning for not granting it?

I hope this explanation helps you to understand how your overall approach to my request created such a negative impression with me. I don't wish to expend more energy debating, so if it hasn't achieved that then, oh well, I gave it a go in good faith. Perhaps there are adjustments that could be made to the Autopatrolled pages to make the expectations clearer. I'll get back to my taxonomy edits and aim to ensure there is nothing for reviewers to fix, even on style aspects. Best wishes, YFB ¿ 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yummifruitbat. I don't mind you posting long contributions to my talk page. My apologies for not replying earlier. I've been pondering what to do with it and am currently composing some thoughts on a relevant talk page. I'll ping you when I save it. Schwede 66 07:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

Book review: The Editors

Humour: The Newspaper Editors

Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

DYK suggestion/request

Same as always .. if you agree, credit to you.

... Arab rower Saleh Shahin won a bronze medal for Israel at the 2024 Paris Paralympics, 19 years after he was injured in a terrorist attack?

Sources: September 1, 2024 article: "Shahar Milfelder and Salah Shaheen won a Paralympic bronze today" and "In 2005, he was injured in an attack at the Karni crossing on the Gaza border, when terrorists infiltrated the place"

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Poecilia vandepolli 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done at Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Shahin Schwede 66 23:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my (IP) friend, I've been tasked with letting you know about some edits to this article. Launchballer's messsage was as follows: Rowing career: WP:SUMMARY, MOS:PARA; don't think i've changed the meaning but user:schwede66 if you could ask the ip to check it against the source. I hope that's all good. Schwede 66 03:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By now, the article has already run. Schwede 66 03:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks my bad. In any event, I think it was unhelpful to for example combine the para on the terrorist attack with the para on the rowing career. Very different issues. Resulting in an overly long para where the prior construct met MOS by clarifying the article by breaking up text and not resulting in a very short section that cluttered the article. So I addressed that. As revised, clarity is I believe enhanced, and logically different subjects are not mashed together in a dense difficult sentence salad. Thanks to all for pushing it across the finish line. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Gutiérrez

Oh my God, I didn't expect it would be you who would post that. Please pull it, it goes against everything editors have been working to achieve to prevent old dead men blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 09:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have actioned this. I shall note, though, that I don't think it's a good idea to open a parallel discussion here. Keeping discussions in one place and pinging those you want to draw in is the appropriate way of dealing with this. Schwede 66 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK suggestion/request

Same as always .. if you agree, credit to you.

... that Alan Rosen once sold 2,400 cheesecakes in four minutes to television shoppers?

Source: February 19, 1997, New York Times article: "And last year, Junior's signed a contract with QVC, the television shopping network.... After winning a contest to appear on a showcase of New York State products, Alan Rosen stood before the grandeur of Niagara Falls in September and sold 2,400 cheesecakes... in four minutes to television shoppers wielding credit cards. He returned to the network a few weeks later and sold 7,100 in less than an hour."

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Crystal (tabloid) 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actioning this now. Nice work! Schwede 66 03:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, as always. I hope you've been well. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All is good. After continuous rain since Friday, the sun has just come out. I hope the sun is shining for you as well. Schwede 66 04:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the warm sun is slipping away from me, in your direction. Enjoy. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of discontinued Guinness World Records deletion discussion

I am notifying you of the creation of a deletion discussion page [1] after you objected to my nomination of deletion for List of discontinued Guinness World Records. Cheers Dingers5Days (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 October bus incident

Hi @Schwede66:, no worries. Agree that the bus incident wasn't particularly notable enough for the 2024 in New Zealand page. I wasn't sure about the criteria for what events to include. Law changes, disasters, court decisions, key government announcements and appointments and major developments in the private sector like job layoffs or businesses shutting down would probably be suitable. Would the WikiProject New Zealand talk page be a good place to discuss the issue? Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andykatib, sure, that would be a good place, I reckon. I guess the threshold should be "lasting significance". As an example, Timaru losing 700 jobs with the closure of one company will have a big impact. Another way of thinking about it is: if a newspaper wrote a detailed account of what happened during 2014 in NZ, what would they include? There will always be edge cases that may need a discussion, but I don't think the bus incident gets close to that threshold. Schwede 66 04:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, Schwede66. I agree that "lasting significance" would be a good criteria for covering a topic. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Pleasure Garden (painting)

Hello! Your submission of Pleasure Garden (painting) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old America's Cup

I thought you may have a view, even if it relates to events before much NZ interest, since they have extended discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1881 America's Cup ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I shall leave it to others, but it seems a ridiculous idea to AfD an America's Cup event. Schwede 66 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi Schwede66, I have found you on Wikidata and I need your advice and assistance if possible. I know that you are most likely very busy, but if you have some free minutes, please take a look at the history of this item: "Sufism" (Q9603). An admin reverted my edit and then I asked him for an explanation, but he said nothing and protected the page without any explanation! It's not a big deal but I just want to know if this is considered acceptable or not? Thanks!--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot read Arabic. Hence, I cannot comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of your edit. Schwede 66 19:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem! Best regards and respect.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sams Creek (New Zealand)

Hello, Schwede66. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sams Creek (New Zealand), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed! Schwede 66 03:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bev Moon

Hi Schwede66 - I've just noticed this from a few months back. Part of the reason for the close paraphrasing is because at least part of the writing in the article is by the same person why wrote the work being referenced :) I figured that since I wrote reference 3, and I hold the copyright on it, it wouldn't be a problem! Since I know nothing else of Bev Moon's work or life, I figured it wouldn't be a CoI either. Grutness...wha? 14:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall the details of this (August is many months ago), but it would not have been ref 3 that I was concerned about. What is in the article from ref 3 is there as a quote, and therefore it cannot contribute towards close paraphrasing. That said, if you own the copyright of some text that you want to use for a Wikipedia article, there’s a process for making it available (after all, other editors need to know that you are donating your work and they can make use of it, too). But that’s not of concern here anyway as the text is used as a direct quote. Does that help, Grutness? Schwede 66 17:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Understandable. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Massachusettsan, in to the harbor it goes unless you want it.

Thank you for fixing the issue on the article when you click the Wikipedia logo in the top left (: Quahog Eater (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you are welcome. Coffee is good before 11am; after that, it robs me of sleep. Schwede 66 03:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Air Lines Flight 636

Regarding your edit summary on this change you made to the article, "Accident" is defined as an event that was not directly caused by humans, hence the use of the term here violates NPOV. No, it is not. Quoting from the Federal Aviation Administration:

The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) define an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, AND in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. The NTSB regulations (49 CFR part 830) define "serious injury" and "substantial damage" as follows:
“Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”
“Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.”

See also 49 CFR § 830.2, with substantially the same language, here. The International Civil Aviation Organization has a very similar definition, from [2]:

Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which reflects the Standards and Recommended Practices covering Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft:
- in which a person is fatally or seriously injured;
- in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repair;
- after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing.

While a "crash" can also mean the same things, the use of the word "accident" in the context of that article was not inappropriate where it was used, so I have reverted your change to the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. That's both enlightening and sad. Schwede 66 03:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I fail to see how a neutrally worded message about a COI edit is 'inappropriate behaviour' [3]

I probably should have made it more precise/obvious which part of the edit was at issue.

If you wish to caution me for that go ahead, but I'm not able to see an issue to work on there. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how chilling such a message can be for a young woman early in her editing career, then I really cannot help you. Schwede 66 03:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]