User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Serial Number 54129. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 32 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concordat of Worms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anselm and Colin Morris.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Review for Sjafruddin Prawiranegara
Hi Serial, do you intend to continue your review on this FAC? I really hope so but please let me know either way. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Buidhe, I'll look in later. SN54129 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like Juxlos has responded to all your comments, do you feel that they were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 08:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.
The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.
Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
RFC on splitting "Airlines and Destinations" out from articles
I believe it would have been beneficial to allow the discussion to run for the full 30 days; even if no additional editors comment, there is no harm in it. As such, I would ask that you revert your close. BilledMammal (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking in, BilledMammal. What full 30 days is that, though? SN54129 15:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Standard length for an RFC; WP:ANRFC. There are exceptions, but I don't believe they can be applied to a no consensus close. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:RFC, 30 days is purely the time given by the bot to
avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commentators' time
; but indeed, editors are actively encouraged tonot wait for that
if, for instance, a discussion is stale. Or in this case, one which has not been replied to in nearly a fortnight could well be assumed to be so. Cheers, SN54129 15:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)- Discussions "waste commenters time" when there is a clear consensus that is unlikely to change. In this case, additional commenters could result in a consensus being determined, meaning that the time already invested would not have been wasted. As such, I believe it is more appropriate to leave it open for the full thirty days. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is not per RfC:
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
my emph Anyway, thanks for looking in again. Cheers, SN54129 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)- Thank you for providing your position. In that case, I would like to ask how you weighted the various arguments when making your close. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is not per RfC:
- Discussions "waste commenters time" when there is a clear consensus that is unlikely to change. In this case, additional commenters could result in a consensus being determined, meaning that the time already invested would not have been wasted. As such, I believe it is more appropriate to leave it open for the full thirty days. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:RFC, 30 days is purely the time given by the bot to
- Standard length for an RFC; WP:ANRFC. There are exceptions, but I don't believe they can be applied to a no consensus close. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
- AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
- The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I only reviewed two, I'm afraid, but one of them is a slam-dunk paid editing job. SN54129 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Lakeview Academy - review of source
Thank you for reviewing and removing the master's thesis source from Lakeview Academy's article as it did not meet Wikipedia's standards. I would also like to thank you for focusing on the question at hand (source review) and not get off track as others had done. You have restored my faith in the editing process.--Smileykaye (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed
Hello, Serial Number 54129
Thank you for creating Ahmad Al Mallawani.
User:Curb Safe Charmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hi. As is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#AFC_and_NPP_-_is_there_a_"rights_conflict"? at the moment, when an autopatrolled AfC reviewer accepts an article it is automatically market as patrolled. This article is a good example of one that should be marked as unreviewed - it needed quite a bit of cleanup, was uncategorised etc.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Curb Safe Charmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, they're distinct processes, and I'm not sure one project can dictate the duties of another. It's certainly an interesting discussion (although, in its current state, seems likely to tail off into oblivion before any kind of firm proposal is made, let alone consensus come to). SN54129 16:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Not a lot...
...I can really do about that draft. It looks sus, for sure, but I don't know who it is. Girth Summit (blether) 12:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Me neither. Just for your notes, really. SN54129 13:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle
Did you create SPI/Arizeuo... manually? You know Twinkle can do that for you? I tried to raise one manually, years ago. Once bitten, twice shy... Girth Summit (blether) 18:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: Nooo—! Tried that myself once, and as you say, thus is the path to madness. The twinkle form froze and the only way of getting out of it was to refresh, which of course lost the info (a shame that editing windows save one's work but dialogue-style boxes (not of the tech term?) do not...). But it's probably my machine; I generally have a mortal number of windows and/or tabs open at any one time, so something often has to give :) thanks for dealing with it so quickly though, especially before the AfD finishes. (By the way, I edit conflicted with there, also doing the sock strike; if you don't mind I kept the little template in, and debolded the !vote, so as not to mislead (?) the script.)SN54129 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- No worries about the AfD, you probably did a better job of it than me. Tabs - makes sense. Looking up right now, I count 46 tabs currently open. What am I doing to my poor processor... Girth Summit (blether) 18:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!
Not sure what was going on with my user and talkpage, but thanks for fixing it. How odd! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of History of Oxford for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Banks Irk (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Mild Reprimand
|
You've been mildly reprimanded by your passive aggressive aunt |
| ArbCom noticeboards are no place for humor, young man! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
- Good one, ScottishFinnishRadish. Kinda glad there are no fair use pics of Tattaglia though ;) SN54129 14:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"Over all civilisations hovers the shadow of admonishment"¹
- (admonished and restricted by arbcom, and never understood why) thank you for taking up the GA review of Prayer for Ukraine, the work of many. The German translation will go to the German Main page tomorrow (with the image taken by me in better times), so if you find things that need change fast a large audience will profit. DYK that we began expanding it, without knowing of the exposure on U.S. television? I have no access to the NYT report about that, - do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have you got a link to that report, Gerda? I'll have a look, if so. SN54129 10:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's in the article, found on de, of all places. There are 2 refs for the same fact that all can see, just that NYT has a higher reputation. A friend uploaded the video for me which is not available in Germany (Europe?), so I can confirm that what the 2 refs describe is fact, especially the detail that until after the last announcement, you do not see that the candles spell Kyiv. - Suppressed by whom one wonders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- ps: ... and I now I can see the article, which has a less good description, but refers to the two other occasions when the show began without a sketch: 9-11 and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea why the bot didn't add it to the list of GAs? - It's on the German MP today (pictured, by me) and tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have you got a link to that report, Gerda? I'll have a look, if so. SN54129 10:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- (admonished and restricted by arbcom, and never understood why) thank you for taking up the GA review of Prayer for Ukraine, the work of many. The German translation will go to the German Main page tomorrow (with the image taken by me in better times), so if you find things that need change fast a large audience will profit. DYK that we began expanding it, without knowing of the exposure on U.S. television? I have no access to the NYT report about that, - do you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- ¹ With acknowledgements, possibly Unamuno, and almost certainly wrongly remembered. Right, on it now. SN54129 14:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 |
- Not sure on what. Prayer for Ukraine is still not among the Music GA (where I'd expect it). - Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Gerda, sorry I didn't reply then. I put it under WP:GA > Music > Songs > Pre-1900 songs, which seemed about right... did you have somewhere else in mind? Feel free to move it, if it should be e.g. under Classical compositions. Nice music, very emotive at this time. SN54129 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's not the typical song, which made me look in the wrong direction, sorry. Next wish: some notice on my talk, - I'm not eager for bot messages but this one is special. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Gerda, sorry I didn't reply then. I put it under WP:GA > Music > Songs > Pre-1900 songs, which seemed about right... did you have somewhere else in mind? Feel free to move it, if it should be e.g. under Classical compositions. Nice music, very emotive at this time. SN54129 17:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Bach's No. 1 today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Question
When you said I and another were socks? Or was that a joke? I was confused because me and that user are unrelated at any just confused on why this user said that someone was drunk in General comments in that RFA. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that Admin Deepfriedokra was suggesting that Admin Floquenbeam was drunk, on that occasion. SN54129 13:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’m assuming/hoping that DFO was jokingly suggesting I was drunk. — Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam I sincerely hope you weren't drunk. Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you are not drunk too. Stay sober, and happy editing! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam I sincerely hope you weren't drunk. Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- ---and/or disorderly 😜. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- We at Wikipedia do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. --MiB --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I’m assuming/hoping that DFO was jokingly suggesting I was drunk. — Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
JBchrch's mediation request
Hi Serial Number, how are you doing? Perhaps you I've seen the ping on my talk page; would you be interested in taking up JBchrch's mediation initiative? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Modussiccandi, and hoping this finds you well also. If anything, I'd be more interested in taking them to AN/I for whatever form of WP:HARRASment failure to respect WP:NOBAN is. Do not be deceived into thinking there is a dispute that needs to be resolved; only one editor thinks so, and it's neither me, the editor my original comment referenced nor the other 57 editors who posted to that RfA. No-one cares. The RfA is over. Dead and buried (non obstante the candidate is wished all the best for their next, hopefully, more successful run). The crux of the matter is that, having raised it here—by way of telling me I should be "corrected" (!!!) for a "blunder" and then wondering, innocently, if they sense hostility (!!!)—I eventually inform them they need not stick around (actually more politely than that...), to which they insist on responding to. Obviously, this is removed, and I am placed in the invidious position of having to remind them to whom the last word—with a few exceptions—belongs on a user talk page. Then they come back again with another comment, at which point I invoke NOBAN. And, of course, they just have to ping me again from your talk. I don't know whether using other WP:ECHO facility to carry on talking about people who have made it clear they do not wish to respond is against the letter of the harassment policy; it is certainly against the spirit of it.TL;DR: My suggestion would be, in this case, not to mistake politeness for civility, and not to allow yourself to be distracted by what is already becoming a timesink. Gently steer them towards your favourite noticeboard, where, no doubt "Let justice roll down like waters, etc.," will be the watchword. Have a good week, SN54129 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Bold
but nice. I was leaving if it for the clerk, thou I think the whole lot are heading for DS bloccks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Was very naughty! Instead of
clerks-l, I bring youseria-l. I'll get bollocked for it, but really, what a waste of time in the making. There aren't enough peanuts to go around 🤪 SN54129 01:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)- Is "Don't do that again" a bollocking? Cause that's my message, seriously delivered. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Barkeep49, it's not something I have made or intend make a habit of; if I wanted to clerk arbcom or anyone else I would
give up my soul for eternityapply through the usual channels (although, on a serious note, it is ironic that only a few days have passed since I reversed a non-clerk action and was critized for it; yes I know it's an arb sub-page, but it's rather a distinction without a difference). For the record, my reasons for that edit were serious, if IAR, and were based on the principle of retaining editors, if possible. See: take a look at the guy's page. He's on the ropes. Probably rightfully. Multiple admins pointing out his faults. Definitely rightfully. And then he goes and posts that. Now, I know that boomerangs aren't commonly despatched or delivered by arbs in official capacity, but that was asking for it. If he was lucky, yeah, it would have been removed; but as you p[pointed out yourself, there are editors who by necessity comment on every case. I felt it was as well to not allow it to get to the stage where anyone noticed. Apologies for the infraction of course, and message received. But if yon guy gets blocked, it should be because of what he's posting, not where; which is what I wanted to avoid, ASAP.On a lighter note, re. bollockings, here's a cryptic crossword clue which seems pertinent :) SN54129 23:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Barkeep49, it's not something I have made or intend make a habit of; if I wanted to clerk arbcom or anyone else I would
- Is "Don't do that again" a bollocking? Cause that's my message, seriously delivered. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Very sorry.
Hi, SN 54129, I'm very sorry about making such a mess out of your talk page and sub-pages, while trying to undo pagemove vandalism. Not sure how exactly the "move all subpages" box got checked--I definitely unchecked it at first, but there was an intermediate confirmation page where I guess the box became checked again--but I think I've gotten everything back to the way it was. Please feel free to pelt me with eggs and rotten tomatoes for every bad page move, and if you find anything out of place, let me know, so that I can fix it and then submit myself to further egg-and-tomato-based penance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- partially in my defense, I've realized it was a bug in the software that misled me here, so I'm not totally crazy: T304008 Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Writ Keeper: I appreciate you sorting it out in the end though. My apologies are probably due for having so many blooming sub-pages: I had no idea there were so many. Until I saw it take you a 100 edits to move them all anyway! Hopefully your phab ticket will iron out the anomaly though. Thanks for dealing with the original vandalism too, by the way. SN54129 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Three Separate Posts Comment
What did you mean in thanking me for not making three separate posts about Draft:Vivek Verma? Were you referring to the fact that the article has been deleted three times? Or is there some other humor that I completely missed?
As to CheckUser and the editor who submitted the draft, as you know, anyone can submit a Sockpuppet investigation, and you also probably know that CheckUser data is only kept for three months. Anyway, I don't know if the submitter is VV, that is, a sockpuppet, or if the submitter is someone being paid by VV, and paid editing isn't dealt with by CU. I don't really care if the submitter is a duck or some other species of waterbird. (Either way, waterbirds can be plucked.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: ah, you noticed! The "three comments" comment was slantendicular reference to this of yours, a three-for-one! 🤪😉Obvs, I'm fully aware of CU policy, but in a case like this, the purpose is to shite up either VV or some PAID ring although to what degree of efficacy I don't know. Hope you're well, and have a good weekend! When it starts. SN54129 12:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Greg and RfA
.jpg)
Greg has been consistently opposing RfA candidates with less than 1 FA or 2 GAs for years and years; see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bradv and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rosguill for relatively recent examples. There's no point debating his view as it's a waste of time and a drama sink. The simple answer is anyone who writes two or more GAs won't get opposed. I've never tested whether there's a difference between the GAs being Texas Recreational Road 8 and Texas Recreational Road 11, or Dracula and The Rolling Stones, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, from past experience he will usually a) say he is being badgered or harassed and b) demand that you explain your support rationale to his satisfaction before he will explain his oppose (which never happens). The fact that
historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified)as there has been on opposers
is not something he accepts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Glad you liked it!
I don't care how much people say, "Oh, that's just GregJack". Needs pointing out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Attack on Kennedy Road
Hiya you took on Attack on Kennedy Road for a GA review on 8 March, I was wondering when you will get a chance to make comments? I'm not in a particular rush, just planning out next week. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mujinga: I apologise for my tardiness with your GAR, Mujinga. We're playing host to 'Rona here, at the moment, so my time hasn't always been my own. But I'm intending to start on Kennedy Road tomorrow. Don't worry if that doesn't suit you—I've kept you waiting long enough, so you should take as long as you want! All the best, SN54129 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I hope everyone returns to good health soon! Please take your time with the review as well, whatever suits. Mujinga (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! By the way, how detailed would you like the review? Obviously, the CA criteria need to be fulfilled, but were you thinking of subsequently taking it further? SN54129 14:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I hope everyone returns to good health soon! Please take your time with the review as well, whatever suits. Mujinga (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
75.169.140.50 activity
Thanks for reverting User:75.169.140.50's strange activity. I was laboriously reverting by hand; what mechanism did you use to implement such a swift resolution to the series and is it available to the likes of me? If not, as the activity by User:75.169.162.15 is evidently the same individual, could you please implement a similar mass rv please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Matt Lunker: Happy to help! This is the script, another fine thing from User:Writ Keeper. Be careful though: I use it extremely;y rarely, as if you had much more than, say, at a guess, a 5% error rate, it could rebound upon its user. "Misuse of rollback" is a thing; misuse of mass rollback, an even greater thing! SN54129 16:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that and I should have said, I'm fully aware it wouldn't be the kind of thing to wield often or lightly, though I have come across similar editing patterns before that were extremely laborious to revert manually. I'm afraid I wouldn't know how to utilise the script and would be wary of doing so at the risk of causing mayhem. Is there an easy explanation of what to do with it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I've asked :) SN54129 19:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that and I should have said, I'm fully aware it wouldn't be the kind of thing to wield often or lightly, though I have come across similar editing patterns before that were extremely laborious to revert manually. I'm afraid I wouldn't know how to utilise the script and would be wary of doing so at the risk of causing mayhem. Is there an easy explanation of what to do with it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 14:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Received and replied :) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 March 2022
- From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- News and notes: Of safety and anonymity
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps
- Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks
- In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff
- Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond
- Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now
- Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon
- Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors
- Traffic report: War, what is it good for?
- Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine
- From the archives: Burn, baby burn
- Essay: Yes, the sky is blue
- Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja
- On the bright side: The bright side of news
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Huh?
Why are you editing other people's comments including this and this? Is this account compromised? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please desist from making patronising commments, particularly when hatting sections. Remember, you
should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors
, per the community's expectations of your conduct.I assume your question is a joke. SN54129 11:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)- No, I was just worried. If you'd said, "hey did you really mean to yell 'play nice' at those two, couldn't you just hat it with no comment" on my talk page, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. But to edit somebody else's comment with "ce" (which gives no indication of that actual issue) eight days after it was made (from which we could assume nobody is particularly bothered) seems so far out of whack that I can't believe it's something you'd do in good faith. FWIW I have hatted discussions using this phrase or similar (eg: "not now chaps") because I feel it calms the mood down. In the past, admins have dished out civility blocks instead, and (quite rightfully in my view) caught merry hell for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cobblers. Which demonstrates bad faith on my part. Even more bad faith would be to suggest that you included that first diff to try to indicate a pattern, although it's clear to everyone that it was an accidental rollback that was itself rolled back the next minute. And it was over 12 hours ago. In which time this supposedly compromised account carried out a ~2K-byte featured article review. "I'm a compromised account, please bring me massive articles to tie me up all morning!" :p SN54129 12:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I was just worried. If you'd said, "hey did you really mean to yell 'play nice' at those two, couldn't you just hat it with no comment" on my talk page, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. But to edit somebody else's comment with "ce" (which gives no indication of that actual issue) eight days after it was made (from which we could assume nobody is particularly bothered) seems so far out of whack that I can't believe it's something you'd do in good faith. FWIW I have hatted discussions using this phrase or similar (eg: "not now chaps") because I feel it calms the mood down. In the past, admins have dished out civility blocks instead, and (quite rightfully in my view) caught merry hell for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Clearly, I've got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. I'll start again .... hello, SN54129, how are you? I was reading Murder of Deborah Linsley again recently, and it's made me think of how safer train travel appears to be these days. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Tropical Storms arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
April
 | |
| April songs |
memories: two people on DYK, both connected to Oper Frankfurt, and don't miss yesterday's video of Pink Floyd given to me! - I'm happy that the only infobox discussions are humourous, - could you perhaps tell our missed ones? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for Robert de Umfraville, introduced: "Apologies in advance to our Caledonian colleagues! This is a fellow—a 15th-century "hero" no less—who wanted "good rest and peace" in England while sending fire ships into Scotland—who may have plotted against Henry V but probably fought at Agincourt as well, who contemporaries saw as "an ideal knight" yet whose biggest claim to fame was that he raided Peebles on market day, burnt the place and nicked all their gear. A piece of work, one way or another."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
dance and singing, peace doves and icecream --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Canvassed template at Will Smith/Chris Rock AfD
I'm curious as to why you added the {{canvassed}} template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars. It seems more likely to me that the influx of new users commenting there is due to many people reading the page about an event that has been dominating the news for the past few days, seeing the giant red banner at the top of the article, and giving their two cents at the AfD. Is there evidence that the AfD was posted to some external website? Mlb96 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid WP:OUTING would probably apply; so an abundance of caution, and all that! Hopefully it is as you say though. SN54129 10:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarendon.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
You pretty much got my number
I did not resent your comment at our discussion in AN, truly. I was trying to say something visceral about how deep feeling for a way of thinking comes from experience, not necessarily from advocacy or refusal of progress. The words erupted from my heart, not my head; I did not intend to make a scene. It was considerate to rethink your comment many hours later. My friends are people who feel they can be candid and direct with me; I'd like to count you as one of my friends as of that datestamp (before that, I'm certain). BusterD (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2022
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
User talk:Britmax
Thanks for putting my talk page back in order, I was just working out how to do it myself. And "arse"? Yup, there it is in a very small nutshell. Britmax (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Britmax, very sorry about that—I didn't know you were around! I thought you'd only edited once today and wouldn't want, you know, arseholery hanging about your page like a smell. You certainly seem to have picked up a...bizarre follower there! SN54129 19:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The thanks for doing that were genuine, you saved me a job. You're right about the smell, and the bizarre followers. Still, all part of life's rich pageant, don'tcher know? Britmax (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Life-upturning times
Yes, and mostly for the better. Sometimes you've just gotta go see about a girl, and other things take the back seat for a while. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Hey, Tol - is your bot going to post this at SN's talk page every month until he runs for sysop? I mean, I'd definitely support if he did, but if he doesn't want to, I can imagine these notifications getting old after a while... Girth Summit (blether) 20:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, shit - self-trout, I should have actually read the message properly. I thought you were hassling SN to run for admin, not suggesting people he might want to speak to. If he's signed up for this, then fair enough - apologies for the unnecessary snark. Girth Summit (blether) 20:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: No problem; glad you figured it out! I'm happy to see the system's getting some use. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, shit - self-trout, I should have actually read the message properly. I thought you were hassling SN to run for admin, not suggesting people he might want to speak to. If he's signed up for this, then fair enough - apologies for the unnecessary snark. Girth Summit (blether) 20:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
He's already run you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Pink Floyd has an RFC
Pink Floyd has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TSP (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Green Children of Woolpit
Happy to see you're still keeping an eye on this article after all your hard work on it earlier. But can you explain your objection to my |ps=none amendments? Sorry, I don't understand Wiki jargon like WP:CITEVAR. Currently in the short References list, MOST of the entries DON'T have a full stop/period after them. In fact I see SandyGeorgia inserted a lot of |ps=none on 4 March with the summary 'citation consistency' to remove a couple of dozen occurrences of full stops. Nobody objected at the time, so I assumed it was the agreed format for this article. I've looked back at earlier versions eg 23 December 2021, and even then all the short refs have |ps=none. I had begun working through the entries using |ps=none to get rid of the remaining full stops - for consistency! I think many of the short refs that DON'T have the |ps=none tag were ones that came in with your own major update - some of these may be ones that SandyGeorgia later added the |ps=none tag to. John O'London (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi John O'London, just to clarify, all your edits to that page can be undone per policy, tragically! BTW, are you out o' London? Kilburn here :) SN54129 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, worried about the content (out-of-date, unbalanced, inaccurate), and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw your own very bold (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some of my own. Sorry, I've never understood Wiki's Featured Article policy, which doesn't actually seem to require an article to be 'accurate'. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and actually say what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. Perhaps we can regard that as part of the review process? I don't think the article has been moved to FARC yet? In the past when I've tried to raise a discussion on an article's talk page it's usually been met with no response! PS perhaps someone needs to consult the latest academic paper on the subject, just out:
- James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed, Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224
- John O'London (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
dispute between darnhall and vale royal abbey
hello, Serial Number 54129! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
- was the judge that the villagers appealed to actually called either "chief justice" or "justiciar"? i had added to the blurb a link to the "justiciar" article to conform with the article body. however, that article states that the office (in england) was replaced under edward i and considers hugh despenser (d. 1265) to be the last justiciar. also, in the legacy section of the featured article, the "justice of Chester" (and not "Cheshire") was mentioned, so i am wondering if any of the sources may have conflated the two offices. (also, apparently, the senior justice of chester was called the "Chief Justice of Chester".) if the judge appealed to was actually the justice of chester, i was thinking of replacing "chief justice in Cheshire" in the blurb with "justice of Chester".
- do you have a preference regarding the oxford comma? the blurb's third sentence omits it, but its fifth sentence uses it.
dying (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: a) Excellent points re. justiciarships, clearly the RS occasionally confuse themselves; b) I generally avoid it but don't always spot it, so all things being equal am opposed to it but not religiously so.Thanks for asking! SN54129 13:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- sounds good. i have made a further edit to the blurb to conform with your comments. (i ended up removing "King's" so that i could capitalize "Justice" to conform with the rest of the sentence.) please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. thanks! dying (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 |
- Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Pity the poor folk of 14th- and 15th-century Cheshire, with their Rachmanesque landlord in the figure of the villainous Abbot of Vale Royal condemning them to perpetual slavery for fifty years... and the rest! They protest their rights to the Abbot. He finds against them and imprisons and fines them. They protest their rights to the King. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the justiciar. He finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. They protest their rights to the King and Queen. The Queen supports them. The King finds against them and returns them to the Abbot. They are imprisoned and fined by the Abbot. You get the picture. Needless to say, there were increasing fatalities among the good brothers, culminating in the eventual murder of—you guessed it—the Abbot of Vale Royal." - I have an imaginary DYK set at the bottom of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
New message from BilCat
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cessna 310 § Cockpit image. BilCat (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Oengus
There is a recognition process, I just haven't set up the paperwork yet ... Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2022
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.- Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- From the team: A changing of the guard
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
- In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis
- Featured content: Featured content of April
- Interview: Wikipedia's pride
- Serendipity: Those thieving image farms
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?
- From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia
- Humour: A new crossword
The Signpost: 1 August 2022
- From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
- News and notes: Information considered harmful
- In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
- Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
- Community view: Youth culture and notability
- Opinion: Criminals among us
- Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement
- Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
- Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
- Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
- Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
- On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories
- Essay: How to research an image
- Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
- Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
- Gallery: A backstage pass
- From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
The Signpost: 31 August 2022
- News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere
- Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?
- In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
- Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees
- News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me
- In focus: Thinking inside the box
- Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
- Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now
- Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth
- Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.
- Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links
- Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come
- Essay: Delete the junk!
- Humour: CommonsComix No. 1
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago
RfA
Nice to see you around. I'd always like to agree with you, but I'd rather disagree than not know what you think. Hope you're keeping well. Girth Summit (blether) 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2022
- News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
- In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
- Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
- Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
- Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
- Featured content: Farm-fresh content
- CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
- From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
French historians
Hi Serial Number 54129, I just wanted to start off by saying thanks for the great work on the major expansion of Marc Bloch, a historian I've taken greater interest in recently. (I'm also curious about your methodology; do you do a lot of your work offline first, in particular, how did you manage this edit back in 2018?) But I'm really here just to invite you to participate in Draft:List of French historians, if you have any interest. I work on it sporadically, but if you want to join in, that would be most welcome. One interesting question there, is who are the French historians who are present in fr-wiki but not in English, so that we can assess which ones should be added as {{interlanguage link}}s, which might provoke some new articles here due to the red links on our side.
The list format is of course very different than the in-depth work you did on Bloch, and if you like that narrative form better, I've also got Draft:French historiography cooking, but it's very preliminary and raw at this point, with most of it just a bunch of excerpts as signposts to point the way. In the latter draft, what I'm most interested in is just finding out what the salient issues are that are addressed by French historiography, to make sure I don't leave out anything major, and on the flip side, don't include trivialities. I.e., at this point, I'm most interested in just getting the Table of Contents to be comprehensive and have appropriate content, and to be properly organized. Your assistance there would be welcome as well. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
You're glitching
/* thwacks SN upside the head (gently, to avoid accusations of WP:THREAT) to see if that resets things. */ --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it was a knock on the head that caused most of my problems in the first place Floquenbeam...currently keeping my head down and away from nearly every noticeboard bearing the same case. Hoping this finds you as grumpy as ever! (After all, it is only Wednesday...). All best, SN54129 16:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- No violence needed, a simple talk page notice seems to have done the trick. Rest assured I am as Grumpy as ever. Hope all is as well with you as can be expected on a Wednesday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2022
- From the team: A new goose on the roost
- News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment
- Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove
- Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com
- Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?
- Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal
WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
- Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
- Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
- BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were- Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.
During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.
- Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
- Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.- Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
- Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.- Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
- Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
- Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
- Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2022
- News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"
- In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
- Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
- Book review: Writing the Revolution
- Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
- Essay: The Six Million FP Man
- Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
- Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"
- Featured content: A great month for featured articles
- Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
- CommonsComix: Joker's trick
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
,_1930.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The file File:Prometheus (Orozco), 1930.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, superseded by File:Prometheus (1930) de José Clemente Orozco en Pomona College.jpg.
_de_Jos%C3%A9_Clemente_Orozco_en_Pomona_College.jpg){kind=link}
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
,_1930.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
,_1930.png){kind=link}
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Serial Number 54129. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |