User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mpox clades[edit]

I think I've finished updating the mpox outbreak articles to use the new name. One remaining task is to update the clade naming. There is some text referring to clades I and II but most uses the old naming. I've been able to find that the 2022-23 outbreak has been identified as clade IIb (see BMJ and PMC 9997665). I'm feeling a wee bit out my depth on how best to update particularly the main mpox, monkeypox virus and 2022–2023 mpox outbreak articles. The latter has a "Cases per country and territory" table with a clade column that is mostly empty and unsourced. I think that column should probably be removed. Most of the country/region-specific articles have text like "caused by the West African clade (type) of the monkeypox virus" and I don't know quite the best word-order for redoing that with the IIb naming. Would it be "caused by monkeypox virus clade IIb" or "caused by clade IIb of the monkeypox virus". Both forms drop the "(type)" and I guess most readers won't know what a clade is. The clade article I link is fairly general. Do we need one on viruses or is that ok?

Anyway, hope you can give some advice and maybe look at updating the main three articles and I'll update the other country articles if you can suggest good replacement text. I think the BMJ article could be a good source for the "IIb" fact, but maybe there are better? -- Colin°Talk 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, I should have time to get to this today. I'll reply in full later. Graham Beards (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin

  • The origin of the new clade naming is here [1]] where it says "Consensus was reached to now refer to the former Congo Basin (Central African) clade as Clade one (I) and the former West African clade as Clade two (II). Additionally, it was agreed that the Clade II consists of two subclades."
  • I think the clades can be kept in the Table if we use the new names and provide a source(s). I'll look into this.
  • I'll update the clades in the main three articles.
  • I think the editor who added "type" in brackets was hoping to help the readers understand what a clade is. The Clade article is ok except it needs to say that there are clades of viruses too. HIV is a good example. I'll look into this too.
  • As for the wording, I think "caused by clade IIb of the monkeypox virus" is preferable but it's no big deal.

Is that everything? Best. Graham Beards (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of 'gram-negative'[edit]

Hi Graham. I saw that you reverted my earlier edit to Gram stain, which I made in the interests of consistency throughout the article. Your edit summary says "There are both uses now in the article", but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article". Excluding usage at the beginning of sentences (where it will always be capitalised, whatever the format used), 'gram-negative' appears 12 times in the article with a lowercase 'g', and only twice with a capital 'G'. I therefore propose reverting back to my edits, as this is in line with the capitalisation used elsewhere in the article, and as used consistently in both Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria. My edit only makes two changes, but changing consistently to a capital G would necessitate many more changes to Gram stain, as well as 34 changes to Gram-negative bacteria and 50 changes Gram-positive bacteria, and would therefore require some kind of consensus to be reached on the three articles' talk pages. Do you object to me reverting the page back to the way I edited it? CLW (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I wrote "There are both uses now in the article" I meant after your edit. I think you missed the figure legends. I prefer the upper case Gram, but I will accept lower case as long as it is consistent. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hello @Graham Beards: How are you? I wonder if you can help me. I worked on this article with SpinningSpark in 2019. I noticed you commented on the FA review of the article in 2020 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1. I am planning to take Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom through FA and wonder if it ready for FA review. It been through a quite heavy copyedit in 2020 and wonder if that has made any difference to the quality of grammer and text. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

ReferenceExpander[edit]

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham Beards (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetal (FAC)[edit]

Graham, now that Nonmetal (chemistry) has failed FAC could you assist me to address your outstanding concerns regarding the article? I believe these have to do with:

  1. not meeting FAC standard e.g. the article just not coming across to you as an "example of our best work";
  2. problems with the title i.e. do chemists have a unique concept of a metal that material scientists don't share(?);
  3. the current scope of the article; and
  4. you finding the noisy table confuses you more than it informs you.

On #2, yes. Nonmetals in chemistry refer to the chemical elements; nonmetals in materials science is a broader concept encompassing nonmetal materials i.e. those lacking metallic properties including polymers (e.g. proteins, DNA, plastics, rubber); ceramics (metallic and nonmetallic elements bonded together): semiconductors (e.g. gallium arsenide); and composites (having two or more distinct components, usually a matrix material and reinforcing fillers). Some examples from the literature are:

  • "It may be used for the roughing, choiceness and reverse flotation of nonferrous metals (such as copper, plumbum, zinc, nickel, molybdenum), ferrous metals, nonmetals (such as coal fluorite, talc)."
  • "...for nonmetals such as concrete1 or plastics."
  • "Ceramics are defined to be inorganic nonmetals. Examples are oxides (SiO2, MgO, BeO), halides (NaCl, CsCl), sulfides (ZnS, etc.), nitrides, carbides, and other compounds."

That does not mean that in materials science the chemists’ idea of a nonmetal is not used. The difficulty arises with regard to the broader conception of nonmetals in materials science as per my examples.

On #4, I’m not wedded to that table and would be happy to consider any alternatives. For example I could add a traditional stair-step dividing line between metals and nonmetals, if you feel that would help.

thank you, Sandbh Sandbh (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really belongs on the article's talk page. But having said that, the dividing line image would be an improvement over that telephone directory of a table. And perhaps place it higher up? I don't think, based on the examples given here, the distinction between materials and elements warrants separate articles. I think the basic problem with the article is that it reads more like a chapter in a textbook instead of an entry in an encyclopaedia. (We tend to forget, I think because we have so much more space, that we are an encyclopaedia). The Lead section does not entice the reader to want to read further. It is dull. Imagine that on the Main Page as the blurb for TFA? Forgive my immodesty, but I know a lot more about viruses than is included in Virus. Part of the skill in writing an FA is knowing what to leave out. Graham Beards (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, I've attempted to simplify the table in the lede. Is it easier to follow?
On related notes I've lodged a request to move "Nonmetal (chemistry)" back to "Nonmetal"; and I intend to further copy edit the article after familiarising myself with the MoS.
I'll have a read through of the Virus article which I see is about the same size (154 K) as the nonmetal article (157 K).
Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi Graham Beards. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know you know all of this, it's an automated message. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Graham Beards (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human hairlessness[edit]

Dear Graham Beards,

you reverted my addition of hairlessness as a charactaristic of humans, which (I think) makes them stand apart from other primates with the comment "Humans are covered with hair except for the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet". I am very much aware of this fact... Yet, if you had followed the link I put in my change (Fur#Mammals_with_reduced_fur) you would have seen, that species with 'considerably reduced amount of fur' are called hairless. Compared to other primates, this is obviously the case for humans, which are also given an example for hairlessness in the linked section. Maybe the term 'naked' is less misleading? I'd love to hear your opinion on this.

Libavius (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (See WP:RSPRIMARY). You will have to find a cite source for this is an academic journal or book. Graham Beards (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already cited in the Human wikipedia article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22333
These are other articles and a book, which use the term hairless(ness):
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0443-4_17
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-naked-truth-why-humans-have-no-fur/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1162/BIOT_a_00062
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330550103
While I added a citation to Fur#Mammals with reduced fur, where the term is discussed, I fail to see, why there should be any citation in the article on humans. Especially if used for humans, it's very much obvious, that hairlessness does not mean complete lack of hair. It's also still used in at least one other article without any further explanation. Furthermore, no other statement in the lead section of the human article is referenced.
Libavius (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead is meant to be a summary of the content covered and cited in the body, so citations in the Lead should not be needed. If the subject of "hairlessness" is added to Human it needs to go in the Body, with a citation, first. Then it can be added to the lead. The citation you added to Fur seems reliable. It's rarely wise to compare Wikipedia articles in this regard, for the reason I gave above.Graham Beards (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I added the subject to the article and mentioned it again in the Lead. I hope, it's good like this.
Libavius (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

I have nominated Cracker Barrel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Florey[edit]

I have the article on Howard Florey up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howard Florey/archive1. If you could take a look at it, it would be greatly appreciated. It could use a reviewers with some medical knowledge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello Graham Beards/Archives,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Hi User:Yamla, with regard to my blocked access and your message "You are using Google Cloud, so most likely using a proxy. If you have to use a proxy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption is probably the way to do so. Just leave a message on your talk page pinging me and _briefly_ explaining why you need to use the proxy and I'd be happy to double-check and grant you IPBE, no need to post your IP address on your talk page. Alternatively, you may be able to disable your proxy."

I am using, as I have used for years, an NHS PC in my clinic. I honestly don't know about a proxy (or what a proxy is come to that). Before I relinquished my admin role, my account was exempt from these blocks. Not having access from this PC will effectively end my time as an editor here. Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted you WP:IPBE. As per standard practices, it's for twelve months. However, it should be basically trivial for you to get it renewed for another year, just ping me (assuming I'm still active) or pretty much any other checkuser. Alternatively, you may find you don't need it after a year. Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive[edit]

Hello Graham Beards:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bordetella pertussis article edits[edit]

Hi @Graham Beards,

I hope you are doing well!

I saw that you took out the addition I made in my wikipedia article regarding the structural changes in B. pertussis. I wanted to ask why and what I can do to make my addition better?

Thanks. @Barbia01 Barbia01 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you are talking about this edit [2]. First you added <ref name=":4" /> under the references heading when it is only needed after the text it supports. This is explained here WP:REFNAME. Secondly, your addition was based on a primary source i.e. a research paper, whereas WP prefers secondary sources such as reviews articles and textbooks. This is explained here WP:MEDRS. Thirdly, there was some close paraphrasing. Your proposed addition needs WP:MEDRS compliant sources to support your statements about reduced vaccine efficacy and disease re-emergence, then you can go onto to cite the research paper but say it is speculative. You could improve you proposed addition by addressing these points and also clarify your meaning here "its genomic organization is not random, rather it favors conservation of core gene orders through certain gentic [sic] elements." You might want to continue this discussion on the article's Talk Page. BTW, Your edit is far from the worst I have seen from your group and could make a valuable addition to the article. Graham Beards (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. These might be useful:

  • Cherry JD (September 2019). "The 112-Year Odyssey of Pertussis and Pertussis Vaccines-Mistakes Made and Implications for the Future". Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. 8 (4): 334–341. doi:10.1093/jpids/piz005. PMID 30793754.
  • Alghounaim M, Alsaffar Z, Alfraij A, Bin-Hasan S, Hussain E (2022). "Whole-Cell and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine: Reflections on Efficacy". Medical Principles and Practice : International Journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre. 31 (4): 313–321. doi:10.1159/000525468. PMC 9485965. PMID 35696990.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review before FAC of Mars Society[edit]

A long time ago, you said the Mars Society article is not up to FAC standards yet. I've made several attempts to polish the prose and ensure text-source integrity, but, unfortunately, the article is still pretty short as it is hard to find additional sources on the topic. What do you think about the article now? (link to article) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prostate cancer[edit]

Hi Graham Beards, I see I'm here for the same reason as CSC just above. I've spruced up prostate cancer and am hoping to take it to FAC soonish. If you've got the time and interest to give it a read, I'd very much appreciate any comments/criticisms you might have. Thanks for all you do! Ajpolino (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started review here Talk:Prostate cancer. Best regards, Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of viruses[edit]

Hello, I hope you have a good time.

I was checking the taxonomy of viruses when I saw that the naming of articles and templates related to viruses was done according to the ICTV classification method. Has there been a discussion and consensus for this type of classification? Pereoptic Talk✉️   07:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sort of. The editors over at the Tree of Life Project have agreed on this some years ago. An old discussion is here [3]. I said "sort of" because not all articles and templates use the ICTV nomenclature. In some the common name is prefered. Graham Beards (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.[edit]

Dear Sir,

First let me thank you in words (I already clicked the "Thank" button) for your kind reversion of Fabrickator's reversion of my edit in the Pathology article. It has actually been remarkably rare that a reversion of a perfectly good edit of mine has itself been quite rightly reverted, so, besides thinking "Yippee!", I also thought, "Great minds think alike".

I see you have 30, 000 edits and were once an Admin, which is all the more reason I think you might be able to advise me about how to deal with Fabrickator. I'm sorry to say that he or she has been following me around Wikipedia for months, reverting perfectly good edits of mine, like the one you re-reverted so kindly. He even admitted just today on my talk page that he believes he should revert good edits that in his personal judgement only improve the article slightly. Here's a complete quote with bold font added by me to the key part:

"
In the case of Jo Koy, I reverted your edit changing the gendered word "filipina" to "filipino". Either term is evidently acceptable (your finding one person offering a different opinion does not constitute conclusive evidence to the contrary), and my message is to avoid wasting the resources to make a change that provides no improvement. I'd extend that to suggest it should provide more than a scintilla of improvement. (When I refer to "resources", I include not just computer storage and the marginal overhead of each revision, but also the fact that every time somebody looks through the history, that's one more extraneous line to look at ... of course, when I revert your edit, it would seem that I'm violating my own rule, except that I'm doing it to make the point. Though in point of fact, it tends to save others some mental effort, based on the idea that less cognitive effort is required to ignore a revision which has been reverted.
Oh, but then there's your brilliant change of making an additional edit to Jo Koy to point out that you had failed to mark an edit as minor, and to "beat that", you inserted an extraneous space into the text of the article, which gave me the opportunity to revert your edit. But the fact that you thought it was appropriate to add a revision to point out that you had forgotten to check the "minor edit" flag shows that you have difficulty keeping things in perspective. (The use of "minor edit" is highly subjective; the strongest case for this option even being available is that malicious editors might check it in the hope that their malicious edit will not be reviewed.)
"
By the way, he misquoted both himself or herself, and me, with lower case "filipina" and 'filipino". Here's his reversion [4].
He has admitted to following me around, after initially denying it. I don't know why he is so interested in me, nor why he is reverting so many of edits. I feel like I'm making progress with him, but, as they say, two brains are better than one, and I was terribly pleased to read your correct analysis of that garbage as "badly written waffle", so I thought why not contact you. If you are too busy, I will totally understand, as you work for the NHS and also are busy on Wikipedia I am sure, with important medical matters.
Best Regards,
Polar
(I'm a man, by the way)

Polar Apposite (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to interrupt here, because I feel my position is misrepresented. I suggested (or implied) that we should discourage edits that purportedly only provide a "scintilla" of improvement. The implication is that the advantage of a particular change is completely negligible, which is distinct from a "minor improvement". Of course these are all subjective matters, but I have not taken the position that "minor improvements" are objectionable. Why this matters? Seriously, if every time somebody read an article, and felt that the article could be made to read just a little better with some slight change, then some other person comes along with what they consider to be another "improvement" to the same text, and this would be advocating for making an endless cycle of changes to the same content, with no actual advantage to the sequence of changes, because in reality it is just a matter of personal preference, and we all have our personal preference. If there is no actual policy to this effect, I would contend that it's implicit that one should avoid making pointless changes. My apologies for the interruption. Fabrickator (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham ... I just felt the need to apologize to you for the fact that such an issue as this one has come to you for resolution. The usual triviality of WP disputes is what it is (even when a dispute may address "substantial" issues on WP), this issue is not one which calls for any special expertise. Nevertheless, I didn't choose the forum, and I'm not given the option to change it. Thanks for your understanding.  ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

It's not for me to decide who is right or wrong here, if indeed there is any wrongdoing. Anyone is allowed to make edits, however small, to most articles, and anyone is allowed to revert them. We have policies that cover how editors are expected to interact, which include assume good faith, the three revert rule and hounding. If either of you believe these, or other policies have been, contravened, you can choose not to get involved and move on, or report to the admins' noticeboard. Short reports – with diff's – are more likely to receive attention than walls of text. Since you asked for my advice, I suggest you simply disengage with one another because this would be the for best for the project. Graham Beards (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to do that. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Graham has chosen to graciously "bow out" of this, and I think it would be disrespectful to discuss it further on his talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrickator He didn't bow out of anything. He gave us advice. His advice was crystal clear. He said, "Since you asked for my advice, I suggest you simply disengage with one another because this would be the for best for the project." That means that he is suggesting that we leave each other alone. He is suggesting that you stop communicating with me, and that you stop undoing my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polar Apposite (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards Fabrickator has continued to post on my user page, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&diff=prev&oldid=1203165617
where he made a new section.
You wrote, "Short reports – with diff's – are more likely to receive attention than walls of text." Thanks for that tip. Do you have any other tips? I searched the ANI archives for wikihounding cases, but didn't find any cases very similar to mine. Do you know of a case (or two) in the ANI archives that is similar, that had a good result, by which I mean a result where the accuser was vindicated, and, ideally, the alleged perpetrator prevented from ever repeating the alleged hounding of the accuser? In real life, you can get free legal advice, and sometimes even free legal representation when litigating. Is there anyone on Wikipedia who could help me out like that? I feel very out of my depth, like a traveler in a foreign country with a unique culture, and an unintuitive, and often surprising, legal system.
This paragraph summarizes in general terms the accusation I am thinking of making at the ANI. As previously mentioned he has followed me to various articles and reverted good edits of mine, such as the one where I removed that "badly-written waffle" (as you so eloquently put it). Fabrickator has also been guilty of incivility towards me, IMHO. He also has followed me to talk pages and posted useless, mostly hostile, replies to my comments there. He has never once praised an edit of mine or thanked me for an edit, OTOH. He has been consistently hostile, except for rare isolated cases of slightly friendly comments appeared to possibly accidentally pleasant, and that call to mind the effect summed up in popular culture as "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Fabrickator has also added a lot of unwanted and useless comments on my talk page, even after I repeatedly told him I was done with him, and even after you recently advised us to disengage with one another. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards I forgot to mention that I have not made any edits (maybe one or two, total) lately, in part because of fear that regardless of how good they might be, they would be reverted, and so Fabrickator has not had the chance to revert those nonexistent edits.
Also, happy Chinese New Year. Polar Apposite (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for making so many posts on your user page. I just wanted to add that one important (I think) difference between my case and the hounding cases I found in the ANI archives is that I almost always only do copyediting, and I select (sometimes somewhat obscure) articles more or less at random, making it very obvious whether hounding is taking place. The alleged hounding cases in the ANI on the other hand seemed in many or all cases to in fact rooted in disagreements about what the *meaning* of one or more articles should be.
I am always very careful (I think) to keep the meaning of what I copyedit the same. *Exactly* the same. I find that to be a fun challenge. If I can't succeed at that, I refrain from marking the edit as minor, with a feeling of slight dissatisfaction.
BTW, I just notice how you nested this thread in the contents box, so that "Reply" was 3.1. That's a neat trick. I am impressed. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to humanity's shared knowledge. Briatorr (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Graham Beards (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment?[edit]

There is a debate at talk:Scientific method#Stemwedel quote to which you may wish to contribute. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steward elections.[edit]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2024 The link invited me to vote. I have no clue. Are you allowed to advise me how to vote? You seem like a good egg, so I'll probably do what you suggest. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023&oldid=1206880676"