User talk:Thryduulf/archive22
Arb process query
[edit]I see you and S Marshall editing the Workshop page at the Medicine arb; does the Workshop run concurrently with the evidence phase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. The workshop phase opens at the same time as the evidence phase but closes later. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks ... did not realize that. So my next question, if you will entertain me, is where to best address rebuttals. James has implicated me for "harassment" via pings in his evidence, although he had never asked me to stop pinging him until 31 March, and he had an acknowledgement from me within 13 minutes. Do I use up more KB on the evidence page to rebut that, or do I add that to the Workshop page under the Analysis of evidence section? The case pages are going to get very long here, so I want to be sure I'm using them optimally ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Basic rebuttal is best in your evidence section, especially as you don't have a word limit to worry about on this case. The analysis of evidence is better for longer form examination of the evidence and seeing how it stands up to scrutiny, contrasting different evidences, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Basic rebuttal is best in your evidence section, especially as you don't have a word limit to worry about on this case. The analysis of evidence is better for longer form examination of the evidence and seeing how it stands up to scrutiny, contrasting different evidences, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks ... did not realize that. So my next question, if you will entertain me, is where to best address rebuttals. James has implicated me for "harassment" via pings in his evidence, although he had never asked me to stop pinging him until 31 March, and he had an acknowledgement from me within 13 minutes. Do I use up more KB on the evidence page to rebut that, or do I add that to the Workshop page under the Analysis of evidence section? The case pages are going to get very long here, so I want to be sure I'm using them optimally ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I am here to abuse of your hospitality and experience :) I have put up my first piece of evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Bluerasberry. Because it will be so lengthy due to the number of editors and issues to be covered, I need to make sure my evidence is tightly focused and helpful towards formulating remedies. Could I entice you to add a reader's critique of my first submission, to guide the rest of my evidence? Keep in mind that each piece I present in this initial submission will be tied to a pattern of behavior repeated across other topics by other editors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I'll take a look, but it might be a couple of hours before I get chance (I'm going to need to start cooking soon and I've some stuff to do before then!) Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- No hurry, and no need to look today ... I have LOTS of work to do still on the rest of my evidence. Enjoy your day, however you celebrate. If you can remember, please ping me when you respond here, since I'm kinda busy :) Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Based on a quick read that all looks good. You do though have what looks to be a reference to a footnote after the statement "26 editors" but you haven't included the footnote. I expect you are intending to add that with a later addition to your evidence, but I suggest it would be better to include it now. This makes it clear what you are referring to when people read this set of evidence and you wont have to spend energy defending it if someone replies before you do add it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was there, but buried at bottom, so I moved it up. Thank you SO much. You don't find it too much or tedious reading? I have just added my preamble, upon which all other evidence (to be submitted) will be based, in case you also have time to look at that: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#WPMED tension is long-standing. I would have preferred to submit all of my evidence at once, so it will all hang together, but am concerned that the Workshop page is already becoming overburdened with proposals that will not address the core dispute. Hence, I have put up this partial .. but full evidence will build on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- At arbcom being tedious and overinclusive is better than missing something important. There is a reason only mad people read cases for fun! Don't worry about overburdening the workshop, the arbs/clerks will step in if there is anything disruptive or stuff is off topic. However don't duplicate for the sake of making a complete decision, e.g. if you want to suggest a remedy based on a finding of fact someone else has posted, just post the remedy and note in your comments that it is supported by User:Examples's proposed FoF "BadEditor did Foo". Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I expect one editor I have tangled with before to complain about (my) length, and I tend towards verbosity (understatement), so want to be sure what I have added so far is concise, succinct, on point. But then, since I am adding piecemeal, that could be hard to determine :) I have added several things to the Workshop page which will become more clear as I add evidence. This thing has more legs than an octopus. Thanks for your guidance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- At arbcom being tedious and overinclusive is better than missing something important. There is a reason only mad people read cases for fun! Don't worry about overburdening the workshop, the arbs/clerks will step in if there is anything disruptive or stuff is off topic. However don't duplicate for the sake of making a complete decision, e.g. if you want to suggest a remedy based on a finding of fact someone else has posted, just post the remedy and note in your comments that it is supported by User:Examples's proposed FoF "BadEditor did Foo". Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was there, but buried at bottom, so I moved it up. Thank you SO much. You don't find it too much or tedious reading? I have just added my preamble, upon which all other evidence (to be submitted) will be based, in case you also have time to look at that: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#WPMED tension is long-standing. I would have preferred to submit all of my evidence at once, so it will all hang together, but am concerned that the Workshop page is already becoming overburdened with proposals that will not address the core dispute. Hence, I have put up this partial .. but full evidence will build on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Based on a quick read that all looks good. You do though have what looks to be a reference to a footnote after the statement "26 editors" but you haven't included the footnote. I expect you are intending to add that with a later addition to your evidence, but I suggest it would be better to include it now. This makes it clear what you are referring to when people read this set of evidence and you wont have to spend energy defending it if someone replies before you do add it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- No hurry, and no need to look today ... I have LOTS of work to do still on the rest of my evidence. Enjoy your day, however you celebrate. If you can remember, please ping me when you respond here, since I'm kinda busy :) Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, a process suggestion, that you may be able to give me feedback on. The simultaneous opening of the Evidence and Workshop pages impedes both, as a) editors gathering evidence get sidetracked by cockamaney Workshop proposals from people who have not yet seen any evidence, and b) the Workshop page gets bogged down by those same proposals. It would make more sense to me if the Workshop page opened a week after the Evidence page, still with overlapping time frame. I have had to sidetrack and put up evidence piecemeal so that we don't see a gynormous irrelevant bunch of Workshop proposals based on, as yet, no evidence. Backwards! (And, in my search for diffs, at the rate I am finding new and more concerning evidence, being sidetracked into the Workshop page could add a week to the Evidence phase, as I'm unsure if I will make it on time now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's an idea that deserves more thought. I can see the merits in your argument (although you don't have to contribute to the workshop and you can just ignore proposals that clearly wont go anywhere), but it would disadvantage someone who posts evidence and makes their suggestions on the workshop in the first couple of days and then doesn't (possibly can't) return to the case after that, and requiring evidence to be presented before commenting on the workshop would remove the opportunity from comment by uninvolved editors (sometimes helpful, sometimes unhelpful). Its not something I can recall there being significant discussion about (Risker is a better arbitration historian than I am though) so might be worth suggesting (probably after this case is done) on the arbitration talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, that darn Risker! You can't trust her for anything :) :) (I still owe her a stay-at-home greeting on another page, but have been a wee bit busy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Just letting you know that your name popped up incidentally in my evidence here. Just processing through intersecting contribs ... finding more examples than I know what to do with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Thanks. By the way, are you aware of WP:AN#Review of RfC close by User:Cunard? I'm not plugged in to the case enough to know if that is relevant or not. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't yet read his evidence carefully, but I believe that is the instance S Marshall refers to in evidence? I avoid e-cigs like the plague, because it is a topic (like many other medical topics) that was historically dominated by the bully brigade and unhelpful editor interaction; I am not up on the specifics, but what is referred to in Version 1 vs Version 2 there is totally clear to me at first glance. As you can see, I have had to put up voluminous amounts of diffs to evidence the trend being referenced in that discussion by S Marshall-- how does one show trends without years worth of diffs? There are three issues affecting RFCs in medical editing: a) one editor tries to do too much, all the time, and doesn't often fully engage or understand all discussions, such that speed of editing seriously impedes discussion, leading to !voting-style RFCs often poorly formed; b) !voting by other editors who almost never engage or fully understand discussions reinforces incomplete understanding of the underlying conflicts or issues to be resolved, so that issues fester; and c) we don't know how to formulate RFCs, yet rely on them to the detriment of actual discussion. I put up one of the worst RFCs ever last December, after discussion had stalled, and only understood well into the RFC why it was bad and just how bad it was, then tried to remedy that mid-stream, and made a worse mess of the mess. The RFC was so poorly formed that the inevitable conclusion was no consensus, leading to WhatamIdoing imploring us all to hold off on any more RFCs, leading to the unresolved dispute discussion being autoarchived by the bot (while we were all busy on the drug pricing RFC), leading to the removal of the dispute tag because there was no "active discussion" on talk (wikilawyering?), leading to another edit war pending yet another RFC ... yada, yada, lather-rinse-repeat. Factor a) (one editor editing too fast) worsens over time as long-term, committed, knowledgeable editors have simply backed off from the tactics employed on contentious articles like e-cigs, and avoid WPMED as much as possible. End result of tactics used at places like e-cigs: not enough medical editors engaging, as long-time, founding, core contributors have been alienated. The idea that it is an "ego battle" is off; it is a matter of those who adhere to policy versus those who reject policy, and that is somewhat divided along the lines of old-timers vs relative newcomers, many of whom model their interactions on the bully brigade. MOST of the problems affecting WPMED can be resolved by a) finding a way to get one editor to slow down, digest, engage, understand, discuss; b) instituting some sort of independent approval needed before RFCs are launched; and c) stopping the coordinated !voting on RFCs. With some (not all) of the bully brigade finally being addressed by arbitration actions, the prognosis for WPMED is not as bad as it might seem from the current level of tension. And there are editors who can help rebuild and heal if the underlying issues are dealt with. The outlook is not as bleak as some have painted; we can get along, but I am concerned that I put up enough evidence, to show why the standard techniques used for arb enforcement won't work to solve the issues in this case. TMI !! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Persistent edit war!
[edit]Hey there, please take a look at User:Saichana 's editorial history. He's making a mess out of Talk Pages and was already being warned and banned before. Thanks HinduKshatrana (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HinduKshatrana: I've blocked them for 3 months this time, as that's exactly the behaviour they were blocked for last time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools
[edit]Read this in another language • Subscription list
The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.
The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.
- On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
- The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
- an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
- a rich-text visual editing option, and
- other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.
To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch 
these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.
– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
[edit]
Message added 22:18, 13 April 2020 (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.
Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden RfC
[edit]Hi Thryduulf. I know you said that you wouldn't be able to be online for the next 12 hours, so I'm going to go ahead and close the RfC on Talk:Joe Biden by myself. I'm really sorry about this, and I wanted to explain my thought process. I think that several days ago, if we were asked to determine the result of the discussion, a team of multiple uninvolved administrators would have been advisable due to the contentiousness of the discussion. However, in the past few days, circumstances have changed with new reporting in mainstream reliable sources, such that I believe the outcome of the discussion is fairly straightforward and perhaps uncontroversial. I understand that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we have no hard publication deadlines that news organizations might. However, I think it's important that we switch gears in the discussion from "whether" we include the allegations to "how" are we going to include the allegations as soon as possible. Once again, I'm really sorry for not including your input on this, and I hope that this helps clarify why I made this decision. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mz7: That's fine, thank you for the note. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
This Month in GLAM: April 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Ping
[edit]Thank you, but I'd seen the ping. I didn't participate because I didn't feel like doing anything, and you didn't ask me so I didn't feel like I had to answer anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine :) Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A ping re Biden
[edit]Hi there Thryduulf,
I saw your comments at Jytdog's ArbCom about the fact that the Administrator's NB was no longer really working as intended. I was impressed by what I saw as some willingness to speak out against fellow admins when necessary for the health of the project. That is very rare in my limited experience.
Have you seen Larry Sanger's latest? He seems qualified to critique the project. After working on the Biden allegation for the past two months, I have come to realize Sanger is right, and it is a lost cause unless someone steps in, and unless something like a group of disinterested admins oversee this area.
Noticeboards are failing us, and we have perhaps discovered why. Jayron32 admits here, that to enforce NPOV on the Biden page would result in all his friends getting angry. Editors can waste hours upon hours of time attempting to bring about NPOV and abide by policy, but if admins are not willing to enforce it, we will continue to receive criticism like Sanger's, and articles like this one will be published.
I'm well aware that this note to you is insufficient in many ways. I know you were amenable to helping close the first RfC (someone ignored this fact and closed it anyway, and as per usual it was a head count rather than assessment of arguments based on PAGs), so I thought I'd follow up with you as I don't want to just walk away from this mess silently. Anyone willing to look into the problem deserves a thorough list of diffs and a clean, concise explanation of the noted issues. I don't have 8 hours to spare, and sadly, I no longer have the faith in this project required to motivate me to use my time in this way. If there is interest, I could chip away at this little by little. It's obvious to me this requires an ArbCom since so many admins are involved and because of the topic area. But for now, this little note to you is the best I can do. Thank you for your time, petrarchan47คุก 17:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't been following the Biden saga, or of off wiki, and I haven't seen the latest from Sanger (although I've been distinctly unimpressed with his comments on several previous occasions) and don't have time now to acquaint myself with it all and do the required reading. If I get time in the next few days I'll get back to you, but apologies in advance if I don't. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Thryduulf, I'll leave you to it. Best, petrarchan47คุก 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- American politics is an incomprehensible law unto itself. It's best to wait for them to work it out by themselves - whatever we do, they'll pick the wrong person to be president/governor/senator/representative/mayor. Again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Petrarchan47:: I'd appreciate if you're going to attempt to paraphrase what I say, you wouldn't make up things out of whole-cloth that I never said, stated, implied, or anything else. I never said anything that resembles "making friends angry". What I stated was, and I quote "Maintaining my impartiality as an admin is contingent on me not getting involved in these sorts of intractable debates." My job as an admin is not to pick sides in the debate, my job as an admin is to ensure that people are not disruptive in those debates. That is all. I have no friends in the debate. I have only Wikipedia. If you're trying to make yourself appear to be on the correct side in any debate, it does you, Petrarchan47, no bit of service to make up things and attribute them to people. Please don't do that again. If you're going to quote me, actually use my words in the future. --Jayron32 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's more than fair, Jayron32, and I do apologize for the inaccurate representation of your position. As well, I should have pinged you. petrarchan47คุก 17:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Fifteen Years of Adminship!
[edit]
This Month in GLAM: May 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates
[edit]Read this in another language • Subscription list
This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.
- Reply tool: This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature will get new features soon. The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing
@. You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months. - New requirements for user signatures: Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable. Most editors will not be affected.
- New discussion tool: The Editing team is beginning work on a simpler process for starting new discussions. You can see the initial design on the project page.
- Research on the use of talk pages: The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles. We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.
– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]| Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alexandria on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. |  |
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
Editing news 2020 #3
[edit]
Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:
- The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
- More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
- Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
- The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
- Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
- On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
- In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Fairfield Park
[edit]Thryduulf, regarding my RFD on Fairfield Park, I am not requesting a simple page move but a rearrangement of existing pages - the contents of Fairfield Park (disambiguation) needs to be moved to Fairfield Park (which is currently a redirect to Fairfield), and Fairfield Park (disambiguation) can then be left as a redirect to Fairfield Park. In the past, I have been reprimanded for moving around page contents improperly, so I am being more careful. Leschnei (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If your goal is to move pages then you want WP:RM, regardless of how many pages you want moving. If there are redirects in the way then these will be taken care of when the move is done. If you think it might be controversial or you want to be particularly careful then follow the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The current situation of Fairfield Park redirecting to Fairfield when Fairfield Park (disambiguation) exists makes no sense. Either Fairfield Park (disambiguation) should be moved to Fairfield Park or Fairfield Park should be retargeted back to Fairfield, Bedfordshire. If you think moving the DAB to the base name is controversial then I'll change the target back to the Bedfordshire place and file a RM but if not then I'll just file a technical move request to move the DAB to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I have no idea whether any of this would be controversial or not. I jut know that it's a matter for RM not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Bedfordshire one does get significantly more views[[1]] (171) than the place in Virginia (2) and the station (42 and no longer simply "Fairfield Park") and park (16) so I'll change the redirect back to the place in Bedfordshire and a RM then can happen if needed to move the DAB to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: that solves the problem, thanks. And I'll use RM in the future for this kind of thing. Leschnei (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Bedfordshire one does get significantly more views[[1]] (171) than the place in Virginia (2) and the station (42 and no longer simply "Fairfield Park") and park (16) so I'll change the redirect back to the place in Bedfordshire and a RM then can happen if needed to move the DAB to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I have no idea whether any of this would be controversial or not. I jut know that it's a matter for RM not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The current situation of Fairfield Park redirecting to Fairfield when Fairfield Park (disambiguation) exists makes no sense. Either Fairfield Park (disambiguation) should be moved to Fairfield Park or Fairfield Park should be retargeted back to Fairfield, Bedfordshire. If you think moving the DAB to the base name is controversial then I'll change the target back to the Bedfordshire place and file a RM but if not then I'll just file a technical move request to move the DAB to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
It's DRV time
[edit]Hi, please could you or HJ Mitchell start DRV proceedings? I would like to, but every time I start drafting one, I get angry. The stuff I've discarded so far would attract a landslide "endorse" outcome. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'll take a look tomorrow, but I'm not sure what I can say that wont sound just like sour grapes or rehashing the arguments at the TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
M25 Motorway Ping Info
[edit]Hello there! I’m just here to let you know that I have finally fixed the issue at Talk:M25 motorway where the bot didn’t archive. I think an oopsie was done when typing the talk page name where it shower example. hhahahahahah anyways cheers VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
[edit] | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
Nice to see the original still on this page ;) - What do you think of my New Year's resolutions (on my talk). A longish discussion on both project biography and AN wasn't needed if everyone followed (and for example not removed an infobox from 2011). I am rather determined to not waste time, life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"Tied" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tied. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Tied until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Editing news 2020 #4
[edit]Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
[edit]
The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
- More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
- Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
- Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[2]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
New requirements for user signatures
[edit]- The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
- Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next: New discussion tool
[edit]Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Koala on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
François Mathet at RfD
[edit]Thanks for closing that down for me. (I'm the translator.) I only caught this one falling through the cracks by chance – I do tend to keep an eye out at WP:PNT for articles needing translation from French and some other languages I believe I am competent in: the words are not a problem but redoing all the infoboxes, templates etc is what tends to take the time.
While I totally agree with you and User:Godsy that essentially xwiki links to other languages are not helpful, there is some kinda gap here with redirects and WP:PNT and so on.... I don't know what to do about that but you may have some ideas. To be fair I have never liked Wikidata over the old way of doing Interwiki links, because it is fine if there is a one-to-one correspondence between language articles, but fails badly if there is are (e.g.) three articles in the Arabic but only one in the English.... I said that was a bad idea to assume a 1-1 correspondence from the start, but hey ho.
Thanks for your thanks, from such a hardworking editor like you it means a lot to me. I quite often disagree with you, but you are always polite, and an absolute credit to Wikipedia to do what we come here for, make it better. 84.236.27.182 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thank you also for your hard work translating - and I fully agree with you about Wikidata's 1:1 requirement! Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: My IP has changed and so it is now "94." something. I have created an account, I'm the IP who did the Francois one but NOT the 54 range. I touch type on a Hungarian keyboard, and I make a lot of silly typos, both my wife and I have qualifications in touch-typing and I am nearly blind so I feel the keys and often I miss on them, and I do have a French keyboard layout but usually I just feel the keys and they are not always where my fingers expect them to be. Wikipedia is a great site for me to contribute to, because I can do it all in plaintext and keep my hands on the keyboard, but I do miss sometimes. Thank you so much for keeping this encyclopaedia accessible to people with visual disabilities, I don't know how else to say it, but it means a lot to me. MagyarLinguist (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! You were helping a troll on that page, and on my talk page, and on the troll's, and here and I'm sure none of that is not your intention. Needs to be blocked, not helped. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's more than ironic it is just sad. I'm now accused of being a troll, which my dictionaries tell me is a loanword from seventeenth-century Swedish.... My own opinion is that this is a parody, and by WP:RNEUTRAL we can keep it, but there is obviously WP:Article titles should be neutral. The basic problem is actually that Swedish WP has it (as attributed)) so that it will have to go at their equivalent of our AfD. The question is, essentially, what would an English-speaker expect to find?. I grew up in a town whose station was overnight renamed to Silkingrad, a cheeky bit of parody...
This at the Swedish may well not be neutral, but all we can do at EN:WP is translate and leave it to other editors to choose. It doesn't help them choose when things are constantly being removed. For example changing the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE to say it is "derogatory'" is just WP:OR. I provided references. I dare not edit this article again, but I'm not at all homophobic and I resent that accusation. I'm actually bisexual, but have been faithful to my wife for ten years, I know how to keep my privates private. If this term is abusive or derogatory in English then the article should be deleted: but certainly redirecting it to "Stockholm" does nobody any good. MagyarLinguist (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @MagyarLinguist: I can't see that you are doing anything wrong, and I'm sorry your experience here is being tarnished by someone acting completely out of line. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I can take the abuse... what actually got my goat is that this editor then accused you of acting in bad faith. I have been editing Wikipedia one way or another for about fifteen years, and in all that time I have never once seen you make any contribution in bad faith. As I said above, I often disagree with you: That is why we have WP:BRD and stuff like that. I can take it. The editor, ,when I checked his or her contributions, seems to have a penchant for making unilateral decisions on what Swedish articles we are (or not) allowed to have at EN:WP, but I won't make a big deal about that. I might as well accuse you, that having "uu" in your nick you're a vacuum, continuum, triduum, menstruum, or muumuu. Perhaps the Swedish Chef might bring a bit of sense to this.. Bork bork bork. MagyarLinguist (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ha! Years ago I was actually accused of being Swedish based on my username (by someone who was later indeffed iirc) - it's actually Anglo Saxon! Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- We'll sort this out and it's a nine-day wonder. Here in Hungary, a right-wing group (not violent) overpaints signs all the time. I mentioned the example of Silkingrad, and was disappointed to find there is not a picture there of them overpainting the sign at the old railway station. I believe in about 1971, when they built the new one, then Stevenage Development Corporation as then was kept an archive which is in Stevenage Borough Council's museum which I have visited many a time. In all seriousness, I phoned the museum yesterday to ask whether they have a free-use picture they can send me. It is this kind of thing that is a bit annoying, I can quite imagine they are not allowed to go into the place etc because of restrictions and so on, but I've left them a message as certainly that would improve the article, if I can find a free-use image. We have an article on the Albert_and_Ebenezer_Fox but not a redirect Twin Foxes, which we probably should have (WP:NOTFINISHED and so on). (I mention this beause I think the museum records them in their local history as having a hand in changing the name of "Stevenage" to "Silkingrad". I myself was born in Welwyn Garden City, which is a right pain to explain to Hungarians where "W" is not part of the rather extensive Hungarian alphabet, and my surname also has a "W" in it, so I end up as a an H. M. Bateman cartoon whenever I have to do any official business).
- My own view is that it is a joke article both in Swedish and now in English, but we don't have joke article by which I would mean an article about a joke, obviously not to mean that one just writes the article as a joke... the Swedish reports the joke, and perhaps in my translation I did not make that clear, but it was just as the first step making an extremely literal translation. I didn't write "F is a gay-bashing name for Stockholm" nor "it was graffitod by Pink Power" and so on, so the accusations of homophobia are way out. To remove any doubt: when I said "my wife", she is female. One can often get away with that in Hungarian and English through the lack in both (completely unrelated) languages neither has grammatical gender, my linguistics teacher called these "Free rides" that just by coincidence one can use the same grammatical structure in both languages.
- There used to be a company called trolltech.com who made cross-platform software, that I used for many years. One thing it did in its translation unit, a really great idea, is (their words) "encheferize" English. They were based I think in Stockholm, perhaps over the border in Oslo, can't remember. It worked really well, as the things properly translated would be translated, but the things one had forgotten to translate turned up in what P. J. O'Rourke in Eat the Rich (book) calls humorously "Orgy-Borgy language". I speak about four languages daily, I've already spoken this morning in English to my Hungarian wife, and to Hungarian to the tobacconist, and I'll have to speak Roma to my neighbour who is deaf, and my British Sign Language doesn't work here... so for some bizarre reason he shouts at me in German (I've tried to tell him many times I'm not German). On a first approximation, most of the world is multilingual. MagyarLinguist (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- You spoke Hungarian to your tobacconist? Oh, boy. Did you say "I will not buy this record, it is scratched", or perhaps "My hovercraft is full of eels"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ha! Years ago I was actually accused of being Swedish based on my username (by someone who was later indeffed iirc) - it's actually Anglo Saxon! Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I can take the abuse... what actually got my goat is that this editor then accused you of acting in bad faith. I have been editing Wikipedia one way or another for about fifteen years, and in all that time I have never once seen you make any contribution in bad faith. As I said above, I often disagree with you: That is why we have WP:BRD and stuff like that. I can take it. The editor, ,when I checked his or her contributions, seems to have a penchant for making unilateral decisions on what Swedish articles we are (or not) allowed to have at EN:WP, but I won't make a big deal about that. I might as well accuse you, that having "uu" in your nick you're a vacuum, continuum, triduum, menstruum, or muumuu. Perhaps the Swedish Chef might bring a bit of sense to this.. Bork bork bork. MagyarLinguist (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Confusion with move from Draft to Article space
[edit]Thanks for your understanding here about my confusion of moving article from draft to article space. The reason I got confused is that when I clicked on Move, I thought it was a drop-down menu starting at the TOP of the menu. I went down and there was no option for Article, so the only viable option seemed to be Wikipedia. Then after I had done the move, I discovered it was in the wrong place. I spent some more time playing with it, and then saw that I had to go UP to select "(Article)". It's also confusing because the options are not in alphabetical order--the order is hard to follow. If it were in alphabetical order, I would have known to go to the top to look for A for article.
To answer your question: I think the easiest way to make it easier would be to have it start at the top of the list, so you always have to go down. Putting the items in alphabetical order would also help--then I would have tried to go UP to find Article. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Thank you for that. I don't know if making those changes is possible or easy, but it's useful feedback nevertheless. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: The order of the drop-down list is numerical, except that the numbers are hidden; see the table top right of WP:Namespace for the relationship between numbers and names. One of the reasons for numerical order is to facilitate internationalisation - some users have their interface language set to something other than English, and we would like the order to be the same for everybody regardless of language setting.
- When you go for the drop-down list, it starts off with one row selected, this being the current namespace for the page. Depending upon your browser, this row may show part-way down, with a few entries above it; or it may appear to be at the "top", but with earlier options concealed. A scrollbar at the right edge of the list should indicate how much is being shown, and how far down you are. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64 Thanks for the explanation. Keeping the same order makes sense. I did notice the scrollbar today when I wrote the above, but that was only after I had made the mistake last night.
Depending upon your browser, [1] this row may show part-way down, with a few entries above it; or [2] it may appear to be at the "top", but with earlier options concealed.
- I was using Chrome when I made that edit and it used [2]. I often use Firefox and I believe Firefox used [1]. That's probably why I got confused and believed I was at the top of the list. Is there a way to tell the browser not to act like [2] by using HTML codes? One of the challenges that causes confusion for me (and no doubt other regular editors) is how different the interface works when you change platforms. I do know there is no way to avoid discrepancies and Responsive web design is the way these differences in platform specs must be handled. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not in HTML, and I don't think it can be done in CSS either. You would need JavaScript. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Dipward
[edit]I have made a new proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Dipwad. See what you think. SilkTork (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would you also take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Manor_of_Tottenham,_Wiltshire. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sanskrit on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
RfD comment
[edit]Hey, it looks like you posted your comment about London foot tunnel in the RfD in the wrong section- it's in the RfD section for Santa Rosa de Lima ( Abiquiu, New Mexico). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've moved it to the right place now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Bagatora Railway Station
[edit]Hi Thryduulf,
You removed my proposal to delete Bagatora railway station and I appreciate your input on that. However, I continue to think that deletion is the proper course of action here. The page in question only has one source, and that link does not even concern the subject of the article (its just a link to a general history of Pakistan's railroads). Nor is there even any indication of what page (e.g., which larger rail line) the page could be merged into (or even if the larger line still exists). I also attempted to locate additional sources for this article as an alternative to deletion, but was unable to do so. I saw your note about there potentially being additional sources in another language, however, I don't think that justifies keeping the article at this point as we really have no way of knowing and the article hasn't been updated at all since 2014. In short, I really don't see how this article can meet Wikipedia's notability standards (i.e., significant media coverage). I promise I'm not just trying to delete articles willy-nilly, but I just really struggle to see how this subject qualifies. That said, consensus is of course the goal, so I wanted to see if any of the above changed your mind. Alternatively, I realize now that we could propose put the article on AfD to see if there is any further discussion for or against deletion. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm about to go to bed so haven't read your comment in detail. However, if you still believe deletion is warranted after considering my comments and the possibility of a merge then you don't need my permission to take it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paris (Paris Hilton album) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Difficulties
[edit]In re this request to make it easier to reply to comments in that long discussion, I invite you to copy this diff to either your global.js page at Meta or to your common.js page here at enwiki. I think you will like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Request for Article Review
[edit]Hello, there is a conversation going on over at Talk:Instacart about a recent Undisclosed paid tag. The article is in need of review by an uninvolved editor to decide if the article has been sufficiently "cleaned up" for the template to be removed. I’m reaching out to you based on your recent involvement in the discussion at Template Talk:Undisclosed paid. Thank you! 76.90.102.132 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. I will take a look in the morning. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of ANI case about ProcrastinatingReader
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ProcrastinatingReader. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Help
[edit]I want to upload an image locally to Wikipedia because it is fair use. The image is going to be used in the article Kamil Tolon. I couldn't upload it. Could you help me? Thanks--Kadıköylü (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Seasonal greetings
[edit]Hi Thryduulf,
I wish you are doing well! I just wanted to write that I miss our meetups and that I hope the situation will soon allow for them to resume. It is unfortunately unlikely that I attend the next ones since I now live in Germany. Keep up the great work and stay strong!
Best, − Pintoch (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
[edit]The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes for the holidays
[edit]
|
Season's Greetings | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
Kobe
[edit]Hello Thryduulf. I've moved the name-holder lists from Kobe (disambiguation) and created Kobe (surname). You may be interested in an ongoing topical debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Listing people on disambiguation pages. Seasons greetings, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I find a single list of people with a name much preferable to separate first name and surname lists, and separate sections of the same page very significantly preferable to separate pages. This is because it is not always clear whether a person you see referred to mononymously has that name as their first name, their surname, their nickname, their only name, or some other name that doesn't fit neatly into Anglo-centric naming conventions. Other than for the first two categories, even if you do know what sort of name it is then it's not clear which list you will find the person you are looking for included on. Accordingly I think your change to the disambiguation page should be reverted as it makes finding the article significantly harder. I'm also completely unsure why you've left a random subset of people on the main page and why that list does not include the American basketball player who is by far the most prominent person with the name. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here's what happened. I edited a page on my watchlist and created a new anthroponymy article. The effect of that edit was to leave this version of the page in the form recommended by the guidance at MOS:DABNAME, including a list of people known by the mononym and a link to both anthroponymy articles. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. As a courtesy I left you a note because you had recently changed the page. But you don't like my edit, and you don't like the guidance, so you reverted my edit and left a lengthy explanation in order to assert your dominance. You appear not to have had regard for the actual guidance, or, more importantly to me, how I might feel about having a perfectly good piece of work reverted. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this particular incident, you need to know that domineering behaviour like yours—to spell it out, reverting edits that are procedurally correct, but you don't like—is not collegiate behaviour. You are not the only one: I've mentioned elsewhere that @JHunterJ: has done it too. It does not help build a better encyclopedia. What Enwiki needs is competent editors: you are one and I am one. If I leave this project because of people like you then the encyclopedia will not be better off. Please make a new year's resolution to assume good faith, particularly when dealing with experienced editor colleagues. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you didn't like my changes, but bold, revert, discuss is the normal method of editing. You made a bold change to the page, I reverted with an explanation of why I felt that your change was not an improvement to the page. If you still disagree the next stage is to discuss the matter at an appropriate location (usually the article talk page) rather than to complain about incollegiate behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here's what happened. I edited a page on my watchlist and created a new anthroponymy article. The effect of that edit was to leave this version of the page in the form recommended by the guidance at MOS:DABNAME, including a list of people known by the mononym and a link to both anthroponymy articles. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. As a courtesy I left you a note because you had recently changed the page. But you don't like my edit, and you don't like the guidance, so you reverted my edit and left a lengthy explanation in order to assert your dominance. You appear not to have had regard for the actual guidance, or, more importantly to me, how I might feel about having a perfectly good piece of work reverted. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this particular incident, you need to know that domineering behaviour like yours—to spell it out, reverting edits that are procedurally correct, but you don't like—is not collegiate behaviour. You are not the only one: I've mentioned elsewhere that @JHunterJ: has done it too. It does not help build a better encyclopedia. What Enwiki needs is competent editors: you are one and I am one. If I leave this project because of people like you then the encyclopedia will not be better off. Please make a new year's resolution to assume good faith, particularly when dealing with experienced editor colleagues. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Yeah, there's non-collegial behavior reflected above, but it's not in my edits that improve the encyclopedia by applying the actual guidelines to edits that you like. (And "procedurally correct" can be replaced with "correct", unless you're being non-collegial.) - JHunterJ (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
[edit]| File:Christmas tree decorations 2.jpg | Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year |
| Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
SONIC678 is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
I hope your Christmas is happy and bright this year! Happy editing for years to come. — Regards, SONIC678 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Thryduulf!!
[edit].jpg)
TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Season's Greetings
[edit].jpg)
- X
- Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
- X Hi Thryduulf! Hope that you and yours are in good health, and you are keeping relatively sane! From Simon Simon Adler (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Request for Closure Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Standardisation for all London Neigbourhood / Area Pages
[edit]Hello Thryduulf. I would like to wish you a happy new year and I hope you had a great festive period. I would like to ask you a couple of things regarding your closure to our discussion.
I think you missed the most important part of what I was trying to say (which I created a new discussion explicitly for). And that is that mass editing took place with no consensus. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are tying to say is that it’s absolutely fine for someone to change a huge amount of stuff with no consensus just so long as nobody challenges it at the time? And then if/when this is discovered a while later a new consensus is required just to change it back because the previous no-consensus changes have been active long enough in Wikipedia time? The fact is MetrolandNW made massive changes with no consensus and these have been allowed to stand for over a year. If this is the case then Wikipedia is massively flawed...Justgravy (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The way Wikipedia works is that where there is no explicit consensus for or against any change, then it is presumed to be acceptable if nobody challenges it, and yes once something has been in an article for a while then it becomes the status quo against which changes need consensus. I didn't include this in my closure because it was not at all clear that it was a question you were asking. Indeed, the biggest reason why there was no consensus for or against your proposed changes was because it was not clear what exactly you were proposing. Going forwards I encourage you to focus on the content not the contributor - make it clear what changes you are proposing and why you are proposing that based on how it will improve the article, without reference to who introduced whatever it is you want to change. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- But I am challenging it though. I have only recently returned to Wikipedia after a significant break, a break that Wikipedia itself advises if editing becomes too much. The thing is, Wikipedia seems to find a change acceptable that completely violates established guidelines? It clearly states here that guidelines “are developed by the community to describe best practices” surely by going against them it is degrading the quality of the content, and such content is not the best it could be? But thank you, I will focus on these guidelines and making sure that they are implemented, as that is what they are designed for.Justgravy (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7 § Bustan Ketab ((publishing)
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7 § Bustan Ketab ((publishing). As you also participated in related discussions at yesterday's log. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2020
[edit]
| ||||||
Editing news 2021 #1
[edit]Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
[edit]
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
- The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
- It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.
Research notes:
- As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
- There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[3]
- The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[4] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[5] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.
New discussion tool
[edit]
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[6] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
Next: Notifications
[edit]
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads up. I think User:MB's dab proposal is much better than mine in the Child Welfare RfD.--Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)