User talk:SlimVirgin/November 2019

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1919 Anzac medal

Transparency is added correctly to the illustration. However, unfortunately, the night mode does not add a black background to the rest of the image and it remains white. It looks the same on my computer. I don't know if there is any way to change that.

Best regards PawełMM (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PawełMM. The rest of the page is a cream/beige in night mode. Perhaps it would be better to add cream instead of white/transparent. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PawełMM, I solved the problem by using an infobox with an off-white background. See here. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen years of editing!

Hey, SlimVirgin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and TY for your determination and resolve to be a leader among Wikipedians. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Chris and Buster, much appreciated, for my sins! And thanks for the invitation to the society. I'm glad I didn't end up having to gatecrash. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear SlimVirgin/November 2019,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU, many thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about Wikipedia:Featured articles

Is there a certainly need for "Miscellaneous" items?(in Health and medicine, Literature and theatre)

Why not to put it under the secondary heading like others?--Htmlzycq (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Htmlzycq, I added a "miscellaneous" section in literature and theatre for entries that didn't seem to fit elsewhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I think these entries that didn't seem to fit elsewhere could list at the larger topics，like "Chemistry and mineralogy":--Htmlzycq (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Htmlzycq, okay, I see what you mean. I'll give it a try. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

#1Lib1Ref January 2020
#1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Past perfect vs past simple

Hi. I didn't think the article talk page would be the right place but thought I should discuss here. I restored the correct tense to a couple of sentences in the McCann disappearance article but they were reverted to past perfect, which wasn't correct grammatically. I am happy to chat this through. Essentially the issue is that the things took place at the time given, not before. I was given presents two days after my birthday vs two days after my birthday I had been given my presents. It's not a major point but I'm quite certain and of course happy to chat through.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed earlier this year that when you make a grammatical change, if someone reverts, you ought not to keep restoring it. The tense was fine as it was. The section opens with Amaral's removal from the inquiry in October 2007. It then returns to a period before that: "Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance".

Same with "Scotland Yard issued another appeal in March 2014 for information about a man who had entered holiday homes ... between 2004 and 2006, two of them in Praia da Luz. On those occasions he had sexually assaulted five white girls." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the sentence. 'On those occasions he sexually assaulted' the time in the sentence is 'those occasions'. 'Amaral was made an arguido one day after...'. If the time is specified and the event takes place at that specified time then it's past simple. Grammar is based on sentences.

It's entirely unfair to say 'keep restoring' when I have opened a discussion after a single restore. I would be very happy for you to seek another opinion if you believe I am wrong but I have to say that the past perfect should not be used to describe an action that took place at the time specified in the sentence. That is what past simple is. An action that took place at a prescribed time. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sought an opinion from a professional editor and they agree with me. Your copy editing was contentious. I don't want to link to the discussions, but you recall that they weren't good. So please, if you make a grammatical change and someone reverts, don't restore it. If it's more than a preference issue, go to talk. If not, better to leave it. And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't scold me at length in edit summaries. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No scolding has taken place and I would be delighted to read a grammatical explanation as to why the sentences in question should be in the past perfect. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't restore. At the same time I am quite certain that if it weren't for your status as a rightly admired editor and admin this wouldn't even be up for debate. Past perfect is quite simply the incorrect tense in these instances. In the spirit of collaboration, rather than authority and rank, a grammatical explanation using grammatical language would be appreciated.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]