User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015 ← Archive 2017 Archive 2018 Archive 2019

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2017

Just so those were notable people that passed away in 2017. I don't what makes you think you undue all of that work I did. If some of the work wasn't completely correct then come speak to me about! Matt Campbell (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: You have stated that you are not willing to abide by the conventions that death listings in year articles must be internationally notable and have Wikipedia articles about the person. If you are willing to attemt to follow those conventions, I'm willing to take the time to check your additions individually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What do conventions or yearly articles have to do with anything?, and there were articles on those! Matt Campbell (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. You are not following consensus, so your edits will be reverted unless short and clearly appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

That edit war conflict isn't my fault it's there's. I was only doing what I thought was the right thing to do. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: All parties are responsible for an edit war. If you can make a case for the IP6, either trolling, or the sock of a blocked editor who also removed names as "not internationally notable", it's likely that you can get the names restored to 2019. Contact the admin who reversed you for more advice as to the proper method. I used to be an admin, but you probably don't want my advice. As an aside, neither the "9 Wikipedias" nor "nameless" arguments now have any credibility. If an IP has a reputation for silly or unjustified edits, he/she can likely be summarily reversed, but WP:3RR and WP:EW still need to be considered.
As for 2017 and 2018, and 2019 if you cannot make a case, if you add 2 or 3 a day, I'll check them individually. Otherwise, see conventions such as WP:BRD as to why you might not have success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Never mind. The IP6 was blocked for block evasion, as I suspected. If you restore the names to 2019, with the edit summary revert [[WP:EVASION|block evasion]], it will likely be retained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that I bolded "restore" above. If you add new names with that edit summary, you may very well be immediately blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

recent edits

On one of those edits I accidently put 2 of them in the wrong place, then I put it in the right spot. If that was one of the error's then it's already been fixed.

What other error's did I cause? Matt Campbell (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: In recent edits, you've made:
  • Date field errors: Both having one entry on two lines (that's the one you didn't quite revert properly), and having a ** entry without the date being alone with a single *
  • Spacing errors (* or ** at the beginning of the line without a following space)
  • Trailing space errors (which you cannot see if you use the Visual Editor).
  • grammar errors: mostly relating to commas and the word "and", although I reordered one to avoid descriptions of the form "A and B and C D" which is parsed "A and ((B and C) D)"; I reordered it to B and C D and A, which makes more sense). I gave some examples and failed examples on your talk page.
  • errors in description. Marion Barry was not a civil rights activist, and some of the others you added may have been civil rights activists, but it was not in the lead of the persons' article. Also, we rarely give the group the person is associated with: it should be in the lead of the article, but in either case, it shouldn't be here. Also "actor and voice actor" is a redundant redundancy.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. My mistake. I'm sorry about that. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead of our article on Marion Barry says, "In the 1960s he was involved in the civil rights movement, first as a member of the Nashville Student Movement and then serving as the first chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Barry came to national prominence as mayor of the national capital, the first prominent civil rights activist to become chief executive of a major American city.". JRSpriggs (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Article(publishing) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Article(publishing). Since you had some involvement with the Article(publishing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from List of positive integers and factors/bottom. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

  • Just realised those links were in a 'See also' section, and so the page was already WP:A3. But my point still applies about making use of the deletion policy rather than blanking pages. — Smjg (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Smjg: At most, only the portals are appropriate. Those should have been in Template space, where very short (but not, usually, completely blank) pages are appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal?

Arthur, I have over 200,000 edits that you can revert. Or, you can just wait until I'm dead. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: If you are referring to your excessive incorrect "see also" and categorization: they are excessive, and would be further good reason to delete your tables. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe you are incorrect. I left the "See also" section visually as you edited it. There should be "External references" for virtually all articles. I really do not understand your objections, other than it is something you did not author. Other than that, I appreciate your positive comments. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. – You would delete an article because you did not like the "See also" section?  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No, actually, there should only be External references if the article is not adequately sourced with inline references. And, although I realize that an article should only be deleted if it cannot be made into an appropriate article, the fact that it has significant parts (such as the "See also" or "External links") which should not be there might lead to an accepted (but not necessarily appropriate) deletion argument that, because the article is not appropriate, and we cannot see how it is likely to become appropriate, doesn't mean that it cannot be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

1st Millennium Reversion

Genuinely curious; was it the single letter I replaced to fix a broken reference you needed to undo, or was it something else? If you're going to break a reference again, the least you can do is fix it, or explain the edit. I have literally no idea what, if anything, was wrong. DrScienceface (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

All good here, thanks for the quick response/correction DrScienceface (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Long time...

Hi Rubin,

Long time... re: "if he hasn't learned not to do what led to his block, he needs time off to reconsider", I have to say I was disappointed and hurt by that comment. I have a few questions:

  1. Do you know what I supposedly did that led to that block? If so, what is it, exactly?
  2. Did you read the analysis about what I allegedly did by SMcCandlish which caused wbm1058 to unblock me for being "railroaded" (his term)? If not, it's at User_talk:Born2cycle/Archive_14#On_the_indef,_what_led_up_to_it,_and_hopefully_undoing_it_without_the_albatross_being_made_of_lead. Do you disagree with that? What are we missing?
  3. Do you know what I allegedly recently did that suggests I haven't learned whatever it is I was supposed to learn? What is that?
  4. Any ideas on why all objective (uninvolved with me, recently or in the past) editors, as well as many editors who have been involved with me, are looking at the "charges" and are opposing any sanctions?

Thanks, --В²C ☎ 02:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle:. It appears you haven't yet learned why you were blocked during the US cities dispute. I don't know why your most recent block was established. Assuming it was for tendentious editing, you're still doing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I was blocked during the US cities dispute? News to me. You didn’t answer my questions. That’s an answer too. —В²C ☎ 03:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Arthur thank's for clarifying my mistake and i hope you don't think i was being rude earlier cause that was not my intention ----ThatBaileyLad (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

2014

Which 10 aren't not notable? I can erase them as soon as possible. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about the football thing that was taken care of. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your watchlist

Hi! Ta for your balanced edits. OTOH and FYI, your outdated public user watchlist looks weird, bordering on doxxing and wikihounding: 

Over time, I'm going to move those users in my watchlist because I want to see their contributions over here. 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ...  Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs) Obviously some sort of trouble-maker. ...

Is it needed on your main user page? Zezen (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. However, I don't see any of the examples as doxxing, and they are proper uses of "wikihounding" — monitoring users (or IP clusters, without associating them with the users) known for making particular types of bad edits. Furthermore, the "climate change" editors were being monitored by other users. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Frank Robinson

Hi, sorry to disturb you right, but I need some help with something on the 2019 talk page, an admin thinks he's allowed to erase info that he think's isn't notable to him. So I started a discussion on the talk page and I wondering If we could share your opinion. Matt Campbell (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference

Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Wikipedia Day LA, February 24, 2019

Wikipedia Day LA 2019
Consider the Source

Please join the LA User Group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles, for an afternoon of panels, presentations and conversations on the subject of sources, and cake (locally sourced), in celebration of Wikipedia's 18th birthday.

Sunday, February 24, 1:00 PM-5:00 PM

The Ace Hotel (DTLA)

929 S Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90015

For more details or to sign up, see Wikipedia Day LA, or RSVP via Eventbrite.

Everyone is welcome! We hope to see you there. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter .
 To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Open letter to Nancy Pelosi

I see you refer to it on your userpage, but the user had it deleted 8 years ago, so only admins can view it. Enigmamsg 18:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's even more likely to happen, now, though. However, I'll remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I can ask him if he'd be ok with my posting the letter in your userspace. Enigmamsg 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It was deleted under MfD as being inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't know if it is a good idea to revisit that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. I didn't realize. Enigmamsg 18:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

2019

What errors are you talking about, and how many were there. I can add some of them back one at a time and you can check them if you want? Matt Campbell (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: Try adding them back no more than one per day, and I'll look at them. You're frequently dealphabetizing existing entries, as well. I can understand putting new entries in the wrong place, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. A few names at a time I understand. And we will add Pedro Morales image back when we have enough space and also the image of John Otho Marsh Jr.. Matt Campbell (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure Pedro Morales deserves an image, even if space is available. "Professional wrestling" should be treated as entertainment, and persons noted only for one show are usually not considered internationally notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I only re-added 4 names back. They seem to have a lot of coverage already. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I added an image back. Instead of erasing the images we can just hide them, and when there is enough room we can add the images back. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I'm guessing that you already checked the recent names I added back. I will add 5 more in a little bit.

Is the Pedro Morales image not an appropriate Image to use on a yearly article, and I understand that there are rules about using images on certain documents. Matt Campbell (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

2016

Hi, I apologize for adding to many names to the April section. I only added 5 names back if you want to check them. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Arthur Rubin/Archive 2019. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Art + Feminism 2019

Art+Feminism 2019 Los Angeles Events!

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are invited to join Art+Feminism's annual worldwide Wikipedia edit-a-thon and help close Wikipedia's gender gap at one of these Los Angeles–area museums this March! RSVP/Details here.

  • Sunday, March 3: The Institute of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles (DTLA), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Comedy.
  • Saturday, March 9: Vincent Price Art Museum at East Los Angeles College (Monterey Park), Noon–4p. Focus: Latinx+Non-Binary Artists.
  • Sunday, March 10: Hammer Museum (Westwood), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Film+Media
  • Sunday, March 17: LACMA (Miracle Mile), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Design+Craft
  • Sunday, March 31: California African American Museum (Exposition Park/USC), 1–4p. Focus: Women of CAAM.

These Los Angeles events are co-hosted by online magazine East of Borneo and include step-by-step Wikipedia instruction for beginners. Bring your laptop or tablet computer and any reference materials you'd like to work from or share. People of all gender expressions and identities are encouraged to attend.

I hope to see you there! StaceyEOB (talk) - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

2019

Be sure to join the discussion page on 2019 before your randomly erase names. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Gene Okerlund

Here's some of the articles from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and a few countries in Asia:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Matt Campbell (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.joe.ie/sport/mean-gene-okerlund-dead-653584
  2. ^ https://www.foxsportsasia.com/wwe/1010505/gene-okerlund-wwe-superstars-legends-reacts-passing/>
  3. ^ https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/dwayne-johnson-hulk-hogan-pay-tribute-late-gene-okerlund-1178244.html
  4. ^ https://www.smh.com.au/sport/sport-thought-mean-gene-was-a-pioneer-of-selling-the-product-20190110-p50qlr.html
  5. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12185041

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Arthur Rubin! You created a thread called Need help with a Vietnamese editor at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Conspiracy theory lead RfC

Hi! As you are one of the top contributors to Conspiracy theory, you may be interested in joining this discussion: Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you for your input. Leviv ich 06:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur! Sorry to hear the news that your father died. I hope you are okay! 86.3.22.119 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

editing on 25 (number)

You keep on changing 36 to 76 and if you are really good at math as it in you're user page you'll know that 6x6=36, not 76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.66.23 (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

362 = 1296. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed...

...this edit, which seems to go against what you've previously advised the contributor. I don't want to step on your toes though. Deb (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

2005

You said to add only a few and 5 counts as a few right? Matt Campbell (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell:. 5 counts as a few, but any errors, even grammatical errors, (although I'll forgive minor WikiFormat errors if you are using VE), may mean I revert the whole thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What does VE stand for? Matt Campbell (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:VE — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Albert Finney 2019

Why is he a bad choice? Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, a Secretary of the Army seems more notable than an actor, in general. Perhaps Finney could replace one of the other actors? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

I only removed images if there isn't enough space. You can't block either. Matt Campbell (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: It's just a friendly reminder. You've been recently blocked for edit warring, and it may very well happen again. I won't bring it up at WP:AN3 if you restrict yourself to removing images. But if you re-add any persons, ..... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I only got blocked for being rude to another user. Matt Campbell (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I really do appreciate the reminder though. Matt Campbell (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Help a new editor

HI Arthur, my name is Ronit and I am a new editor to Wikipedia. I just created my first article yesterday but it has got a notice for deletion. Can you help me in keeping my article and removing the banners on my article? this was my first attempt. I would be really grateful if such a wonderful editor such as your self would help me with my other articles so that I can learn better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronitnath (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment

For the recent deaths section, United States state legislators have been listed there. It is unclear why an United States state legislator can not be listed in the death section of a given year article. Kenneth Hall (Illinois politician) served in he Illinois General Assembly from 1967 until he died in office in 1995. It is confusing that an United States state legislator can be listed in the recent deaths section but can not be listed in a given year article in the deaths section. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@RFD: There is still a requirement for international notability in recent year articles. He doesn't seem to be known outside of Illinois, especially since the article doesn't state anything notable about him other than he was in both branches of the Illinois legislature. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

RE:Images in year articles

Well then, could you please substitute the likes of Devon Werkheiser and Kyle Massey, who have seemingly had little impact on the music of the 2010s, for Tyler, the Creator and Young Thug who have influenced today's popular music and artists ([1], [2])?

I also agree that there should be the same amount of images for each month, but I think the images should be of people who became the most notable in their respective fields. Theo Mandela (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I doubt hotnewhiphop.com is a WP:RS, and Werkheiser and Massey appear to be known for acting, rather than rapping, but I don't see a significant difference in importance, so I wouldn't object if you swapped out some of the images of people you consider less important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"That's just wrong"

On this edit, you reverted my changes to 2019, claiming what I put in was "just wrong". You didn't provide any further clarification, and the article sourced says that Taiwan "scrambled its fighter jets" in response to the Chinese intrusion. Can we discuss this issue? Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hdjensofjfnen: What's wrong is the link to "scramble". In general, we don't link within quotes, but, if you do, use the correct Wikilink, which would be scrambling (military), not scrambler. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would believe that that was something you could fix yourself? I'll put the edit back with the link changed. Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 19:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
To Hdjensofjfnen: The point is that you should make the effort to get it right the first time rather than expecting Arthur to clean up after you. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) JRSpriggs, which policy or guideline is "get it right the first time" from? WP:NOTPERFECT? WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? WP:SOFIXIT? A link pointing to the wrong page is not a good reason to revert an edit. Leviv ich 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hdjensofjfnen:. I'm not convinced that "scrambled" is appropriate and/or needs to be linked, even if the item is important enough for the year article 2019. As I'm not entirely convinced the item is important enough, I didn't think I should attempt to improve the item, when I'm not convinced it should be there at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(←) There are many entries in 2019 and other year articles, then, that you would mark as unimportant information, despite them being events that affected/could affect international information? Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 03:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

UC Irvine edit-a-thon on May 17, 2019

UC Irvine edit-a-thon on May 17, 2019

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Friday in Orange County, focused on gender equity. The event is a collaboration between UCI and Women in Red.

Friday, May 17, 2019
10:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT (UTC-7)
Langson Library, Room 228, at University of California, Irvine

Points of contact:

For more details, including the registration link, please see the meetup page. Everyone is welcome! We hope to see you there.

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Task force climate change

Hello Arthur Rubin,

I saw you're one of the main editors of the Green New Deal. Given your interest in climate change related articles, I invite you to have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. It's been inactive for a while, but I strongly believe that this topic should have an active group of collaborating editors to help each other with a critical eye. If you'd like to contribute, please add your name to the participants section, add some task to the to-do list or help make the to-do list a bit shorter.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

THANKS!

Arthur, so many thanks for your message, and I do have a lot to learn. I will ask you to check any posting before submitting.

Thanks again Pcaceres00 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Curlie discussion

Continuing here as template discuss was closed keep. We allow paid / COI editing as long as it is disclosed and neutral aswell. Additionally the German community has pending changes on everything, meaning that the established community reviews everything before it goes live. Away just something to keep in mind if the Curlie community needs support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender balance

Elizabeth Catlett was already listed and had an image, so I substituted her for an American man. I would really have preferred it to be someone better known of a different nationality, but at least she's not white and not an actress. Any other suggestions as to how we can tackle the problem of balance would be welcome. Deb (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

.

Thank for your advice, I will try to follow this points next time. just I want ask, is there any rule for which people write their birth in years articles, because I notice that many of them shouldnt add their name. there are thousands who born in this year, is their any notability for this? thanks --FPP (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

FPP, It's a problem. There used to be a guideline for years after 2001, but someone bullied the editors into removing the condition. For a listing, the person being still should be internationally notable, and there should be a Wikipedia article about the person. If there are articles in 9 other-language Wikipedias, it is presumed the person is internationally notable. We don't have any criteria for whether an image should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at 8th millennium BC, you may be blocked from editing. Your personal opinions about date format do not allow you to remove sourced content that had been added to expand and improve the three articles. If there is anything in MOS which supports your views, please give me a pointer as I can't find it. It is quite normal to write 10,000 BC with a comma, though I concede that usage of the comma with dates to 9,999 BC is perhaps 50/50. There is no "rule" whatsoever about having a space after "c." and both styles are widely used. I will, however, take a closer look at the date formats. Some of them had already been re-amended as you should have noticed. The new content will first be restored, of course, and I would advise you not to delete it again. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed??

Hi hello am Charlotte Peek.I was just wondering why you removed Lil Mosey from the 2002 list of births.Or maybe you can do better than I can? Charlotte Peek (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Charlotte Peek: You made too many errors adding it the first time. I still don't think he's important enough for year articles, but you almost got the formatting correct this time, so I just tagged him for importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

?

whats wrong with my edits in 1990? I did as you want --FPP (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Baseball player speedy deletion requests

Just a friendly heads up that I've declined a number of speedy deletion requests you made for baseball player articles. Each of the articles had some good faith claim of importance (sources, awards, etc), which is a lower standard than actual notability. I agree that most if not all of those players aren't notable right now, so I left any prods in place. Cheers. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: I may have missed them, but I didn't see any claims which would be a claim of importance if proved. Most of them had a claim of being drafted by an MLB team, but not whether they signed or played. Some had a little indication of notability in college or high school play. But I defer to your decision on CSD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your message in my talk page is that you did not even check what the other user is propagating in the articles which he/she changes. He/she removes all mentions of both the Common Era and the Anno Domini calendar systems, in contradiction to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style.

He/she also left messages at my talk page where he claims that Common Era is a form of cultural appropriation. As for discussing with the editor as you suggested, you did not see his/her message right above your owm, did you? :"you can chove your common era bullshit where it's uncomfortable". Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick:. It's not vandalism. His reasoning is faulty, but his actions make some sense. The 23rd century, for example, is a century of the Gregorian calendar, and a century in the common era (AD). Which is more important, and how they need to be listed, needs to be discussed. Perhaps a thread under WikiProject Time? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Picture addition and removal

I actually don't have an account and this is my first time to edit and the reason i remove some photos and add the Logan Lerman picture because, the actor is very notable for a long time and most of the pictures that you put there were very unknown personalities/celebrities or not very notable. So I'm sorry if i cause you a trouble. --49.146.10.123 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Logan Lerman

I don't know why you had a problem with that accountless user but i kinda agree with him/her though. Just because Logan Lerman is only notable for one role doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an image in the Births section. I think he should have an image in the birth section though. So if you want to discuss just reply to my message in your talk page. --MarkyLyresh (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Decade: Usage

Can you please explain your comment, "Well, it CAN be so referenced. It shouldn't be", accompanying your reversal of my edit? Are you objecting to the use of the references or to the text which refers to "the seventh decade of the 20th century"? This expression is one which clearly is used, so if you are objecting to the use of the references, please explain why. These were put in to satisfy the previous editor who deleted mention of the expression on the grounds that he/she did not personally use it. Blurryman (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Blurryman: I'll try to locate the previous discussion, but there is consensus that such statements should not appear in articles such as 1900s (decade), 1970s, etc., because they are incomplete or misleading. That's not quite the same as it shouldn't appear in Decade, but it leans that way.
What I remember of the reasoning is along the lines as
If you can find a source including that, and can summarize it, including the nuances, then that might belong in decade, even if not appropriate for individual decade articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The seventh decade of the twentieth century would be January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1970 inclusive. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin. Thanks for your reply. In light of the comment from JRSpriggs, I think it would be more appropriate to move the discussion to Talk:Decade. Do you agree? Blurryman (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Blurryman: (You don't need to ping me on my own talk page.) Quite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Date templates

I'd appreciate it if you would review the comment I just left on Template talk:Dr-make. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

.

thank for notice but many of this edits isnt mine, about dashs there are difference between months, so I confuse which is true the tall or short!! --FPP (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

AFD Nomination

Hi. I don't quite understand your AFD nomination of Jimmy Duquennoy, as if you were to read the guidelines and his results, he clearly meets them, having rode for a Professional Continental team and in UCI WorldTour races.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

1992

Why do you keep removing Camille Kostek on the February list? Kostek not only gets more pageviews than Gaitan (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=Paulina_Gait%C3%A1n%7CCamille_Kostek), her page is also more developed (C-class) compared to Gaitan's stub. Kostek in on the cover of the iconic Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Also, every month has a female photo in it, save February with consecutive 3 males! A break from that, with a photo of Kostek, is good for formatting. Maxen Embry (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry: Camille has very limited notability. I do object to artificial diversity, but I particularly object to placing a non-notable female in place of a notable male. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Kostek is a 2019 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Model and first ever winner of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model Search. And Gaitan is a bit part actress who starred in a web TV series in Mexico. And it's not even about diversity, it's more aesthetic re the photos. /END Maxen Embry (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss on Talk:1992. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France

Hi. Including WP:AN/I in the talk page of WP:Wikiproject France rendered it unreadable IMO, so I took the liberty of substituting your use of a template by a simple link. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comte0, Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That's ok, it was a quickly fixed mistake. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I finally replied, sorry for the delay. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Woohooo

Hey, Arthur Rubin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

AR

How has the social scene here been the last 3 years. I've been away for awhile but the WMF blowup seems to have given me hope. 1YoudKnowIfUNEW (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The block solves the problem of how to answer this question. (It also indicates that "you" may not have been away for a while.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

2043 ad / 6000 years

Hello, Arthur -- Thank you for your email. Here is what I posted (that you removed as original research) --

(( 2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament. This may be readily computed by placing the construction of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) at 966 BC, a widely accepted date based on the work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. From 966 BC count back 2992 years to the first man, as given in the Old Testament record. (1656 Adam to the Flood, 427 to Abraham, 430 to the Exodus, 479 to 1 Kings 6:1.) This places the first man at 3958 BC. 6000 years forward takes one to 2043 AD. ))

I read the concern about "original research," and I wonder if there is a misunderstanding. The 966 bc date is source attributed, so I think you mean that the following years need references -- 1656, 427, 430, 479. I can readily supply published references for these, I was merely trying to keep things brief.

But in the section about "original research" it is mentioned that a source needs either to be cited for attribution -- or, a fact needs to be attribut-able. Each of these numbers is attribut-able from a variety of sources: McClintock and Strongs Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature 1867, Volume III, "Chronology." Or, Smith's Bible Dictionary, a classic commentary. Or, "The Time is at Hand," Charles Russell, 1889, Chapter Two, "Bible Chronology." (or many other places.) Here are relevant citations from the last source which is most conveniently at hand (a book whose circulation is listed on the internet as exceeding 4,000,000 copies).

1656 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," page 43.

427 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," page 44.

430 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," pages 44-47.

(The 479 years is evident from 1 Kings 6:1 directly, as year 480 just beginning means a passage of 479 complete years to that point.)

None of these four periods is esoteric or unique or modern -- they are well known figures for Old Testament students that James Ussher of the 1600s, Isaac Newton of the 1600-1700s, and every researcher since then to modern times would be well familiar with. (Certainly nothing that is original with me.) Anyone involved with this area would recognize these figures as wholly generic and widely recognized staples in this field.

The only one of these in any sense modern is the date 966 bc, which is attributed to Edwin Thiele of the last century (whose work in this field is widely known and respected, it holds the first place, strongly endorsed by contemporary scholars also, such as Kenneth Kitchen of England.)

(The various sources mentioned do not merely reflect the opinions of some one particular Christian fellowship, they are widely and generally used.)

Regarding the 6000th year -- this is not a trivial observation. From pre-Christian Jewish times, through Christian times, the meaning of the close of 6000 years in both Jewish and Christian thought has been well expressed and well studied, as introducing a much revered 7th Millennium. The study of this has drawn luminaries such as Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, and very many since then.

This area lay at the root of early Christian expectations -- See the article "Millennium" in McClintock and Strongs, Volume 6, pages 264 and forward -- and is still very much part of thinking in many branches of Christianity, to a lesser extent also in Jewish thought. (Whereas the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th millennial periods are not.) Thus the close of 6000 years, beginning the Seventh Millennium, is more than a passing curiosity for the great many who have historically, and currently, engaged in the study of this subject.

Granted, this interest would be specific to cultures with roots in Judeo-Christian thinking. But that includes quite a number -- suggesting it is worthy of notice.

Please advise me. I would be glad to edit as necessary. However, perhaps in light of the above, the blurb might stand as is. Here it follows again --

(( 2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament. This may be readily computed by placing the construction of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) at 966 BC, a widely accepted date based on the work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. From 966 BC count back 2992 years to the first man, as given in the Old Testament record. (1656 Adam to the Flood, 427 to Abraham, 430 to the Exodus, 479 to 1 Kings 6:1.) This places the first man at 3958 BC. 6000 years forward takes one to 2043 AD. ))

DavRice (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice

@DavRice: See, for example "our" article Chronology of the Bible. The most famous attributed chronology is the Ussher chronology, setting the creation of the world on October 23, 4004 BC (proleptic Julian calendar). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There were millennialists in AD 1000, AD 1033, AD 2000, AH 1000, and, contrary to your assertion, 5000 AM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur -- Yes, I am aware of the Ussher article. Note that his date for creation was 4004 bc, and his date for the temple was 1012 bc. That is 2992 years. That is the same sum as used in my post -- 1656, 427, 430, 479 -- 2992 years. The difference is that Ussher did not have access to the date for Solomon's Temple in 1 Kings 6:1. Now we do, since the well respected work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. Thus the year ending 6000 years -- using the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament -- is 2043 ad. It seems well worth a notice.

(( There were millennialists in AD 1000, 1033, 2000, AH 1000 ... )) ---- Perhaps some misunderstanding here. My comment was that the end of 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 years, from the beginning, were not points of interest -- but the end of 6000 years from the beginning has been of interest.

Yes, there have been millennialists for the past 2000 years seeking a solution to this point. Some of them thought that the key figure of 6000 years from the beginning would bring them to 1000 AD, and other possibilities. They used something like an Egyptian long chronology, using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which expands many of the numbers, and other variations. Thus my mention, "according to the Hebrew Old Testament." If we use that count -- and affix it to the now widely accepted date of Edwin Thiele (966 bc, 1 Kings 6:1) -- then we have the end of 6000 years in the year 2043 ad.

As you observe, this question has been of interest for some centuries now. Now that we have a good fix on the year 966 bc for Solomon's Temple, the result yields 2043 ad for the close of 6000 years. This result, so long of interest to so many, seems a good point to at least observe in the list of things due in 2043. Is that agreeable?

DavRice (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice

@DavRice:
  1. Do you want your IP6 (starting with 2600:....) redacted from the logs? (If so, eMail me or User:Oversight to request the IP/user and one revision of this talk page be WP:OVERSIGHTed or WP:REVDELed.)
  2. We (Wikipedia) operate from sources. If you can find a single reliable source which settles on 2043 AD being 6000 AM (allowing for calendar drift), rejects the other chronologies, and says why it is significant to Christianity, I would reluctantly agree that some mention should be included in 2043. Otherwise, try to reach consensus in the article Chronology of the Bible first. As this is controversial, please start by discussing what changes you would like to see in that article on its talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(( Do you want your IP6 (starting with 2600:....) redacted from the logs? )) ---- Yes, please. Thank you for asking.

(( We (Wikipedia) operate from sources. )) ---- ok -- but I endeavored to supply ample sources. McClintock and Strong's, Smiths's Bible Dictionary, The Time is at Hand (4 million circulation), Ussher's Chronology -- that support 2992 years from Adam to Solomon's Temple, and each of these is a long standing reference work. The only "new" piece is from 70 years ago -- Edwin Thiele's work, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," which is the reference work on the date 966 bc. Even the NIV study bible years ago picked up on this and includes this date in their footnote on 1 Kings 6:1. From there it is simple addition.

I myself have written two books on the subject, "The Stream of Time," and "The Approaching End of the Harvest," the first one in 2002, the latter in 2016. Both are available on the internet in PDF form. You can find these at "www.2043ad.com" -- a website up for several years now. (Button "6000 Years.")

(( If you can find a single reliable source which settles on 2043 AD being 6000 AM (allowing for calendar drift), rejects the other chronologies, and says why it is significant to Christianity, I would reluctantly agree that some mention should be included in 2043. )) ---- The two books mentioned above are the best on this. I have studied this area for more than 50 years. But these books, though going into intricate detail on the Venus Tablets of Ammizadugua, the Lunar Dates of the 12th Dynasty of Egypt, and additional confirmations for 966 bc drawn from the studies of Rodger Young -- still use as their foundation the long standing and oft published facts about the testimony of the Hebrew Old Testament -- namely the 2992 years to Solomon's Temple.

All we are adding to this is the link to the now widely accepted work of Edwin Thiele -- 966 bc. (And no, I am not of the fellowship he belonged to and never knew him -- my only letter to him years ago reached his publisher just after his passing.)

2600:8801:8305:6400:5930:1E17:27B0:5D9B (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice

Speculative?

That United States Congressional (and in leap years,presidential) elections are to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is fixed by law until and unless it is ever enacted otherwise...I see no reason this can't be added to every even-numbered future year article.How is it "speculative"? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision

Hello, Arthur Rubin,

On this arbitration talk page, we have sectioned comments by editor, so I have moved your comments to a separate section. You can find them there. Feel free to expand upon them. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

22 (number)

Not sure why you reverted my edit. It's accurate.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Naddruf, Actually, I don't think it is accurate. The normal range is from 21 to 23, I believe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Decade and Century articles

If my additional text which you have reverted was "Misplaced and partially misleading": a) how was it misplaced, and why didn't you just move it? b) how was it misleading, and why didn't you just amend it? Blurryman (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Blurryman, I think I've got it fixed. Referring to List of decades and List of centuries is a reference to the style (not content) of an existing Wikipedia article, and it needs to refer to Wikipedia articles in general. It may might also need to be moved to another paragraph, but then it would need to be given a name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen the changes you've now made to these two articles. That seems to work okay on the 'Decade' article, but not so well on the 'Century' article where it produces a situation where we have the wording "generally used on Wikipedia" referring to 1-to-100 centuries, quickly followed by "In general usage" in respect of 0-to-99 centuries, which could cause some confusion to readers. This was why I originally intended to restrict my references to the content of the specific "List of" articles. I would not be averse to a separate section dealing with this issue of the usages within Wikipedia articles, perhaps titled "Usage in Wikipedia". Blurryman (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Undo December 1994 deaths

Please, explain your "too many errors" and "addition of one removed by consensus" comment. Do you consider an "error" the death date of a French Prime Minister? Your total reversion seems arbitrary and unjustified --Zarateman (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Zarateman, When I do a spot-check and find 50% errors (in this case, mostly people who should not be in the year article), I revert the entire edit. Since I have a little more time, I'll restore those which I think might belong, and tag those which I'm not sure with {{importance inline}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. This is a more correct procedure.--Zarateman (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Upside down year

My concern with your removing the reference to Mad Magazine from the lede of the article is that the reference to Mad Magazine is part of establishing the article's notability-of-topic. MaynardClark (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Year pages

Just curious if there were any guidelines or essays regardling listing of events on year pages e.g. 1990. On day pages, the edit notice {{DOY page notice}} appears. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba:. The unapproved guidelines for recent year pages were removed, in response to bullying by an editor whom I consider disruptive. The general rule, which seems to be accepted, at least for years since 1950, is the event must be internationally notable.. Perhaps Deb has guidelines which she follows, as she has removed items which I consider allowable even under the old rules, because they fit better in a subpage, such as 1990 in sports. Hank certainly could go there, with no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion should be at WT:YEARS, but not even a local consensus has been reached, and the unnamed editor wouldn't accept it if it was reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I've got no objections to people putting things back, even if they can't provide a reference (because we haven't yet introduced a rule on that although I have no doubt that the year articles will soon follow the same pattern as the DOTY articles); the main thing is that they should be thinking about it. This has been discussed many times and I see the problem as being the unmanageability of long lists of names in Year articles, and we've always failed to reach a conclusion although we've often reached a general consensus that "something needs to be done".
What also troubles me is the additions by individual contributors who are interested in specific topics - so, for example, they add as many Australian rugby league players as they can, or as many French racing drivers as they can, thus losing any pretence at balance. In some cases it's obvious that all Americans have been added to the Births section as a matter of course while other nationalities are completely unrepresented. Deb (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you think?

I changed a small text on the 2nd-millennium and 3rd-millennium articles. I think the 1000s millennium and 2000s millennium are far more suitable names simply because it avoids confusion over the difference between the millennias and decades (1000-1009 and 2000-2009). If we leave it as 1000s or 2000s, it will create problems. What do you think? Should we keep it or change it back? WildEric19 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC) @WildEric19:

Interesting idea. I think I'd use 2000s (millennium), rather than 2000s millennium. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the idea :-). Alright 1000s (millennium) and 2000s (millennium) it is then. WildEric19 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I decided to add commonly-used for texture if that's alright with you. During the late '90s, people were celebrating the 1999-2000 as the switch from 1000s to 2000s. If you disagree, please feel free to revert back. WildEric19 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)WildEric19
Actually, people were terrified that the Y2K bug would destroy the world. It turned out to be a dud.
I celebrated the beginning of the third millennium on January 1, 2001. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
As per your Y2K suggestion, not true, but whatever. Hope you and your family/friends had a great celebration. My wife and I on that day did the same as we always did, sleep. Never really cared for the 1999-2000 nor 2000-2001 celebrations. As a matter of fact, I'm not really a fan of New Years.
@Arthur I made multiple edits, but decided to drop the conversation because I realize it's pointless to comment, sorry about that buddy. WildEric19 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed

I would be interested in learning more as to why you think my contribution needed to be removed. Thanks. TAZart4 (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TAZart4: Your reference doesn't specify a time. It also doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for always helping me keep the year articles in check. LoreMaster22 (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I do not understand why you said that I was spreading false information? In the 2020s wikipedia page I said that the new decade starts by 2021 and ends by 2030? Did you think that was wrong, if so you're the one who is wrong. MikiiTheSerb (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

MikiiTheSerb, Yes, it's wrong. Only a few Wikipedians and a few blogs state "the next decade" is 2021–2030. There seems to be no reliable source (as Wikipedia defines it) which makes that claim, or even comments on that claim. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはArthur Rubinたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit in December 2019 Wiki Page

Hi, I'm Dantheanimator (or Dan, your choice). I received your message regarding my edit on the 2019 Wiki page. I don't understand my mistake or how the event I added was/is unimportant. Sorry for any inconveniences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheanimator (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dantheanimator, I didn't mean to say you didn't have good intentions. I just don't the entry is one of the most important events of the year. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I can partially see why my event might be considered insignificant. I'll leave it off. Thank you for alerting me of this issue. I am very sorry for any inconveniences and mistakes I have made. By the way, your forgot to put the word "think" after don't.Dantheanimator (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 about the 21 June 2020 annular eclipse undo

Hi there.

I noticed on the 2020 page that there was a 14 December 2020 eclipse, so I thought, Oh, someone forgot to add the annular eclipse. I must add this if the 14 December 2020 eclipse was already added. So I added it, and when you went to remove it, you did not take notice of the 14 December 2020 one. Is this supposed to happen, or is it just my wondering why solar eclipses are not added to these years? 69.246.122.149 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I was harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.122.149 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2019&oldid=1190248217"