Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
We all make mistakes; it’s not possible to get everything right all the time, RoySmith. It’s just puzzling that the checks-and-balances backup failed. It should have been spotted during the checks when promoting to queue. A hook struck on the nomination form isn’t subtle. Schwede6619:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What says you, theleekycauldron? Is there a technical way of preventing struck hooks from being promoted? The issue here is a hook that was struck on the nomination form got promoted to prep (and the subsequent manual check during promotion to queue didn't pick it up). Schwede6620:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember attempting this, but running into some weird bugs. I'll make it a higher priority to get it working properly; as always, my talk page and the talk page of PSHAW are open for bug reports :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022
Suggestions:
There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
The reality of F7 is that it can be really speedy as in immediate deletion for images from commercial agencies; sort of speedy for replaceable non-free images as it can be deleted in 2 days; and not so speedy as described there which is 7 days. I think the confusion comes in because they are all covered under speedy deletion but the action of disputed non-free under F7 behaves more like a PROD for two of the three cases. I'll have a think on this and maybe propose some wording changes on that page. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq Yeah, I've previously wondered about this "speedy deletion" that takes seven days. I'll watchlist that page and chip in if that's useful. Schwede6602:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page to align the deletion guidelines with the actual options for F7. This should reduce the confusion somewhat but I expect that so long as some of the options for tagging is under DI in Twinkle, it will still be a bit confusing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi . I just wanted to give some feedback on the revert you did for my update for this page. There was an abundance of new but properly sourced material that in my view didnt follow WP:NPOV. I checked back on previous elections and 7 iterations seemed to be common for the winner to reach the quota or 50% . Hence its not 'decisive' as well but was more a personal opinion. The numbers show Ms Whanau well ahead of the runners up which would seem to be sufficient. The previous elections I can see what the quoted material meant to say, but of course thats my own research. Okerefalls (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, Okerefalls. You removed the following content: "Eagle's fourth-place finish was described as an upset." It was referenced to a reliable source. I appreciate that in the final result, Eagle came third. To me, it would have seemed more appropriate to amend the sentence to reflect the final result (i.e. "third-place finish") but the "upset" would still hold true, wouldn't it? And by the way, personal opinions are irrelevant for Wikipedia; the only thing that matters are what reliable secondary sources say. That's where Wikipedia gets its content from; please have a look at WP:5P2. Schwede6620:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that . Im hoping to learn from this situation. But my issue wasnt with the 3rd place- getter, It was the 'boosterism' and departure from the NPOV in sourced material about the winner. I see this a lot in references to political events , although not as obvious in this situation. Unfortunately its a growing tendency to write up material as the 'biggest' or in this case ' decisive' when NPOV would suggest lesser terms Okerefalls (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Schwede66. Per your post here, if you ever see a GAN you'd like to review and would like a second set of eyes to look over the prose, feel free to leave me a message or ping me and I'd be happy to do so. English is my native language, so usually the prose review is the relatively fun and easy part. I'm happy to leave the more tedious parts of the review in your hands. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm coming back to here to let you know that I've started my very first GA review. And I've managed to pick one of yours, Ajpolino! Rookie mistake. Ah well, Chocmilk03 has also volunteered to team up so if coverage issues can be addressed, I'll ask her to help with prose. Schwede6601:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schwede66! Let me know once you're ready for me to take a look at the prose; on a quick skim through it looks well-written and I doubt there would be much to highlight under the 1(a) and (b) criteria. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'm most happy to look over your shoulder when you do a review and give guidance where needed. Do you know how to ping someone? Schwede6605:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not sure whether you've kept an eye on the DYK nomination. It's already been improved. Pbritti was the reviewer and they said that they were most impressed with your work, and if you ever needed a hand, they'd happily help. Was the Eva Duldig nomination our previous collaboration? Schwede6605:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll do one. Thanks again. I think I know how - just write their user name in brackets? Thanks for the note from Pbritti. Yes, Eva Duldig was our earlier collaboration. BTW, I was working a while ago on another article, that I at least think is interesting and perhaps may lend itself when I finish it to DYK, but I'm not yet certain. Perhaps if OK I'll run it by you when it's ready for someone to look at if that is ok.2603:7000:2143:8500:F9DC:DA9F:DE64:B62C (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New idea for a possible DYK... If you think it makes sense, and would like me to try to review another's DYK nomination before I publish this, let me know and I will do that. (I seem to have let it slip last time).
That’s a great article and I really like that hook. Good work! Yes, why don’t you have a crack at a review. Send me a ping (do you know how to do that?) when you start the review and I can look over your shoulder to make sure that you cover everything. Schwede6607:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ok. I just started to review Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Sheddan. Not sure if I know how to "ping" - is that just putting your user name in brackets? As to that article, one odd thing is it is - though a good article - primarily based on one source, which I thought was not preferred, and have seen a template in general against. Another - that seems to make review tougher, unless I just assume good faith, which perhaps is the answer. (one last thought on the above Mosberg hook in the prior DYJ - great it was published, but IMHO the hook that they(?) changed it from at the last moment would have attracted far more interest). 2603:7000:2143:8500:5942:2023:24C1:44D1 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging: yes, it's placing the user name in brackets like so [[User:Schwede66]] and placing a signature like so ~~~~ in the same edit; it doesn't work when you forget to sign and it won't work either when add the signature to an unsigned talk page contribution that's got the link to the user in it already. Both elements need to be placed simultaneously. But it's all good as I've watchlisted the nomination page. With regards to sources, I count six books, a newspaper reference and a London Gazette notice. Of the 21 individual citations, 12 are from one source, which leaves 11 others. That's absolutely fine. When sources are offline, you have to assume good faith. And with Zawed you can be sure that he's done a good job; he's an absolute expert military biographer. Given that the article has gone through a Great Article review, the content should be just fine. The biggest trap with GAs is to ensure that there is a reference for the hook fact. That reference may well be offline but it must be placed at the end of the sentence that mentions the hook fact. Having it at the end of the paragraph isn't good enough; it must directly reference the sentence in question (it's one of the niggly DYK rules). Not saying that's the case here (I haven't looked at the article); what I'm saying is that's the most commonly overlooked check when the nominated article is a new GA. Schwede6619:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, do you know that James McDowall an ACT MP maybe running in the by-election, because I have heard it on the news. Andrew King the former Hamilton mayor joined the National Party and he may be run for National candidacy. Villian Factman (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora Schwede66; I noted the conversation above about GA reviews. I'm keen to give one a try and would be really grateful for your assistance, if you're willing to /have capacity to be a sort of 2nd reviewer? I think the prose part will be easy, but MOS/policy compliance less so! Let me know how your availability would be over the next couple of weeks? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I had a look at a bunch of sources and the long name was the most common one. German's my mother tongue, although I don't speak it much these days! Schwede6607:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that written sources will introduce it like that, but once established, it's just Konzerthalle, in sources and article. It has nothing to do with German, some Inventtown Concert Hall would be the same, that particular name or just Concert Hall, Inventtown. I though that "Bad Salzuflen" is pretty foreign to English-speaking readers, and if you grew up there, you may remember that even Germans don't agree on how to pronounce it, - therefore as little of it as possible made sense to me. If the common name would be 3 terms, we'd have to repeat those 3 for every mentioning, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look for quirky hooks and the appear to be scarce
Hi Schwede66
Thanks for the note, why has the data been removed, is there a Wikipedia policy which states that it should not be on the article page? It is information about the relevant world championship listed and is valuable information. Racingmanager (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for advice. Others have given it with far more brownie points than me but I still think they have created future difficulties for categorisation of volcanic activity on the seabed for those countries with volcanic activity in their continental shelf. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. ChaseKiwi, I suggest you think about a suitable category (run it by me here if you wish) including how it would fit into the category tree and once established, you simply recategorise the articles. That may leave an empty category behind and if so, that category would then be deleted. Schwede6620:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Hey there, Schwede! This'd be too long for WT:DYK, but I'd argue that despite her broad appeal, pop music hooks tend to perform rather poorly at DYK – and Swift is no exception. Here are all of the Taylor Swift hooks I could find, going back to December 2021 – only "Should've Said No" beat the median, and it arguably wasn't even the best hook. Hope this provides some useful insight :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if you swapped the entire history of Queues 2 and 7. Could you revert that please? When future DYK historians want to trace the history of a hook, they should find it in the page the bot says was used for updating the Main Page.
Just as a heads up, I just finished setting up December. Hoping I haven't managed to screw up the money day photos somehow. We had them going really well for a few months now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!05:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks for letting me know, Adam Cuerden. I'll keep an eye on most of the main page queues; not sure whether you know that. Mostly just to catch redirects as I have a utility installed that highlights them. I do read many of the blurbs, though. BTW, I did suggest to consider moving the Template:POTD/2022-12-09 item to 15 January 2023 for the first anniversary of the eruption; I posted on the item's talk page. No response yet. Schwede6608:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, that's why I thought you could use a heads up. Probably a good call to move it, though I shall have to make sure to fill in the gap soon. Not now; I just did all the bloody Wikipedia Signpost stuff because it publishes tomorrow. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!02:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, had the Christchurch mosque shootings on my watch list and noticed what looked like the start of an edit war; I left a comment on one of the more experienced editors to nudge them in the direction of dispute resolution. But Instead, they just deleted the comment from their talk page. Is this standard behavior and as you are an administrator can you help resolve the situation?
obviously just a Kiwist denying that New Zealanders are more responsible for the attack than Australia was. the only thing Australia had to do with the attack is that he was born here, nothing else. Christchurch and Dunedin have enormous right wing presence, it was said that he was part of many WS groups around the South Island including Action Zealandia. therefore making NZs far-right politics more responsible for the attack. Joshville (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should probably happen on the article talk page rather than a talk page of an unrelated user.
Dear @Schwede66:. I see you are an eminent wikipedian (222,698 edits!!!) and an administrator. I cannot claim leniency as a newby any more, but I am still on a long learning curve with regard to editing in Wikipedia (8,000-and-something edits). Thank you for your intervention on the article Henry Dillon, 13th Viscount Dillon. Being corrected, I suppose I did something wrong and can learn something from you. Also I would expect that your intervention improves Wikipedia in some way.
You changed the months used as inputs to the first and second parameters of the Age template in the first column of the Timeline table from abbreviated to full. Your edit summary reads "fixed dashes using User:Ohconfucius/dashes.js, script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM ". I note that you did not change the abbreviated months in the second column of this table, so your change, despite the edit summary, seems to have nothing to do with MOS:NUM, which I believe treats only with the visible content of Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with the correct uses of arguments for parameters in templates.
In some cases templates that take months or dates as input indicate explicitly in their documentation that they accept abbreviated month names; the Dts (Date table sorting) template does so. The documentation of the Age template does not state which month forms it accepts, but the use of abbreviated forms seems to produce correct results and does not throw errors. So why do you object? And where is the improvement? I have about 100 biographies with Timeline tables on my watch list and am hesitant to change them all unless I can see how this improves Wikipedia. Please forgive my audacity, perhaps I just do not have the level to understand what you are doing. Otherwise, perhaps I am seeing the results of an unwanted side-effect of a script that you are running whose real purpose is well what your edit summary states. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from downunder, Johannes Schade. The script that fixes date formats sometimes gets in a muddle when it deals with links and templates. That's the case here, but in 99% + of cases, it does get things right. There are a few niggles with this script and on the maintainers talk page, there is a list of those; some of those issues have been around for a long time. But all in all, it's a great tool. Back to our case, I've checked and it does not appear to affect the output of the age template. If I've got that wrong and it does display different now, please let me know and I'll go back and fix whatever it is that needs fixing. Schwede6622:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Schwede66:. Thanks for your careful reply. Your "correction" seems to be harmless. However, to a not so experienced Wikipedian like me, it looks as if you correct my contribution, especially seeing your edit count and the fact that you are an administrator. It feels like that you are telling me to change all month arguments in the Age template from the abbreviated to the full form of the month. You should not make edits that are not improvements to Wikipedia. Using a script does not free your from being responsible for your edits. I would say fix your script or stop using it or carefully check your edits manually before applying. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Johannes Schade. It is absolutely correct that the edits to the Age template were not necessary and I apologise that I gave you the impression that you needed to change something when that was not the case. I may point out, though, that I also made two edits to the succession box (the boxes in the External links section). I changed spaced endashes to the unspaced version. That is something that you should change when you come across it. MOS:DATERANGE has the details but in a nutshell, when there is at least one spaces in a date range, you need to use a spaced endash. When there are no spaces (e.g. a range with just years as was the case here), it needs to be an unspaced endash. I hope that explains things more fully. Schwede6609:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Schwede66:. Thanks for mentioning your other two corrections, which I had not even seen. Unluckily it happens quite often to me that I do not scroll down to the end. They are of course valid and I try to do these things right. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Please remove stub tags before nominating at DYK as we don't run stubs" I thought that I already removed them, but I see that I only removed it from the talk page. I obviously know that DYK doesn't run stubs. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal, SL93. I have a utility installed (link identifier) that identifies stubs. Every few days, I cast my eye over the nomination page to see whether any of the bold font items show up as stubs. And when they do, I either reassess them, or remove the stub tag, or both, with this being my standard edit summary. I didn't even look who nominated the article. Schwede6601:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No drama at all. For most editors, it's probably an educational edit summary. Not for you, obviously, as you already well knew that. Schwede6601:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Dear @Schwede66:. This regards the article Lucien Brouha. I am busy looking around for sources. Did you know he wrote a book? This is:
{{Cite book|last=Brouha |first=Lucien |date=1963 |orig-date=1st pub. 1960 |title=Physiology in Industry: Evaluation of Industrial Stresses by the Physiological Reactions of the workers |publisher=Pergamon Press Ltd. |location=Oxford |oclc=14475314 |url=https://www.google.com/books?id=1h8nAAAAMAAJ}} – (Snippet view)
Oh, that's interesting! Thanks for finding this, Johannes Schade; I had not come across this in my Google searches. I don't think it occurred to me to specifically look in Google Books. I see two books written in English and a further two in French. With my level of library access, I cannot get to the abstract. Is that something you could send by email? My Wikimail is enabled. Schwede6600:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember any more how I navigated to the "abstract". When I go there now, it asks me for a login. I think I was logged in at the Wikipedia Library (WP:TWL) when I could see it. –Besides, Vangrunderbeek can be read at TWL. I also found three reviews of Brouha's book at https://www.jstor.org/stable/27722287, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43425068, and at https://www.jstor.org/stable/27721739. All say it is not a textbook but rather a summary of the author's personal experience. –Besides, there are other Brouhas who must not be confused with "our" Lucien but may be family of his: Sharon S. Brouha is a professor in medicine at the University of California at San Diego. There is a Georges Brouha, curiously a rower in France. There is or was a Paul Brouha in Sutton Vermont. There is a Brook L. Brouha, a dermatologist in California. –"our" Lucien Brouha seems to have been appointed in January 1946 head of the "Département d'Hygiène et de Physiologie appliquée" of the Université Laval (Quebec).See https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2679603 and https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ri/1946-v1-n9-ri01297/1023953ar.pdf. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johannes Schade, Brook L. Brouha's middle name is Lucien. I've tried to get in touch with him but he won't respond. Sharon S. Brouha is his wife. And Georges Brouha isn't a French rower, but that's a photo of our Lucien Brouha with his club member Jules George in France. Brilliant; I'll have a look whether the photo is out of copyright. Schwede6621:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And with regards to George versus Georges, I should point out that User:Akadunzio is some kind of Belgian rowing historian who has renamed many Belgian rowers over the last couple of years. The user is not very communicative but when I challenged him on a few page moves, he had sources and was always correct. FISA and Olympedia haven't updated their records yet (FISA never will as they are hopeless; Olympedia no doubt will as their research team is really onto it – copy to Canadian Paul who gets them to action that). Schwede6622:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanteded to tell you about three other possible useful sources (books):
The first book is about the Harvard Fatigue Laboratory:
{{Cite book|last1=Horvath |first1=Steven M. |last2=Horvath |first2=Elizabeth C. |date=1973 |title=The Harvard Fatigue Laboratory: Its History And Contributions |publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |location=Englewood Cliffs, N. J. |isbn=0-13-384156-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/harvardfatiguela00horv/ |url-access=registration}}
On page 124 is a short biography of Lucien Brouha. He is often mentioned in this book, just make a search in the book. Many of his publications are listed in the references.
The second book is about and by the University of Liège. It consists of two volumes. The first volume is about the history:
{{Cite book|last=Demoulin |first=Robert |date=1967 |title=Liber memorialis L'Université de Liège de 1936 à 1966 Notices historiques et biographiques |volume=I |publisher=Liège, rectorat de l'Université |location=Liège |isbn= |url=https://www.google.com/books?id=S8AlkWam8-MC}} – (Snippet view)
I have been able to download this volume but do not remember from where.
{{Cite book|last=Demoulin |first=Robert |date=1967 |title=Liber memorialis L'Université de Liège de 1936 à 1966 Notices historiques et biographiques |volume=II |publisher=Liège, rectorat de l'Université |location=Liège |isbn= |url=https://www.google.com/books?id=n_2_kXgV0b4C}} – (Snippet view)
This volume contains the biographies. There is a biography of his father on pp 589 to 595, but nothing about "our" Lucien.
The third book is about Du Pont:
{{Cite book|last1=Hounshell |first1=David A. |last2=Smith |first2=John Kenly Jr. |date=1988 |title=Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902–1980 |publisher==[[Cambridge University Press]] |Cambridge |isbn=0-521-32767-9 |url=https://www.google.com/books?id=6ld0K9VNpmIC}} – (Preview)
p 567 tells us that Brouha was hired in 1950 by stating "... to hire Lucien M. Brouha, a fifty-one year old physician and physiologist ..."
Page 567 also explains the platform or teeterboard about which some literature talks.
Page 569 seems to tell us that Brouhu lost his job at Du Pont in about 1960 due to cut backs on fundamental research. He seems then to have gone to a Canadian University.
Hi Schwede! I came across this decline and it got me thinking...Do you think we should start an RfC for thepersonage.com? That would be the way to get it listed at WP:RSP. I'd be happy to help with it if you want to do this. TheSandDoctorTalk06:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no thanks, TheSandDoctor. I've got too much on my plate as it is. I've never looked at how sources get added to that list but for such obvious cases, I'd be surprised if it even needed an RfC. Schwede6608:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heya I have a query about an editor(a) who it seems after a disagreement has gone through another editors(b) history and marked pages which editor a deems are non-notable. Would this be targeting? Some of the articles are notable but not listed with the recent changes to WP:NCYC. How do I go about saving these articles as some of these riders are riding at the highest level for cycling and it seems counter productive that these are non-notable. Simply put I am asking advice for this situation and if what editor a did is correct. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent balanced contribution in Stuff . Good to see the real "you"! Missing NZ but hope to be back in Diamond H sometime in January .VelellaVelella Talk 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having those journalists round for an afternoon was fun. Really nice guys. And what they’ve done with the material is primo. Great story telling. Happy homecoming! Schwede6615:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the upcoming Signpost issue, saw mention of this article and read it through, Schwede66. Sounds like drama I didn't even know about was going on in a corner of the project a few years ago! It's interesting to me how contentious spellings and diacritics have been throughout Wikipedia's lifetime, it might have even involved an arbitration case at some point. Any way, you represented the project very well in the interview, explaining policy in a way that made it sound reasonable and not wonky. Good job! LizRead!Talk!21:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Liz. Those journalists were seasoned professionals. Super-well informed. We chatted on the phone for an hour before they concluded it’s worth their while to come for a visit to make a proper podcast recording (it’s a mission to travel to the area where I live). They spent a whole afternoon with me and we went through their long list of questions based on our phone call. They were well prepared and obviously very intelligent. The write up is very good (only one blooper which they’ve since fixed, which is good going for a complex topic) but the podcast is quite something else. It’s a superb piece of work; was fun to listen to and see how they had used the interview material and turned it into an interesting story. Schwede6618:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]
Mount Arthur and Gordons Pyramid Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr, Gerda Arendt. Danke für alle Deine gute Arbeit; die vielen DYKs aber auch die netten Nachrichten, die Du für viele Wikipedianer (sagt man das so?) hast. Wir waren über Weihnachten wandern und ich habe gerade ein Foto hochgeladen. Unsere höchste Stelle war Gordons Pyramide (auf Commons kannst Du Dir angucken, welcher Hügel das ist). Viele Vögel haben für uns gesungen, hauptsächlich tūī und bellbirds. Schwede6603:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
