User talk:Kusma/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43


WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1. New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2. Christmas Island AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3. Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6. United States Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7. England Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Forward College page

Hello Kusma,

My name is Julia and I wrote a page about Forward College, a new university that opened last year. However, you reported the page alleging vandalism, could you explain why? I believe it was a mistake, since the content only informed about the university.

Please let me know if there is anything I should do to have this page live again.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliafariasf (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Julia, the page was actually deleted twice recently. I performed the second deletion, which was of a page created by a vandal trying to harass other Wikipedia editors. The first deletion, by my fellow administrator Cabayi who also blocked your other account (see User talk:Forward College), was because the page was written as an advertisement, something that is not accepted on Wikipedia. From the deleted article and a quick search, there seem to be no independent sources about this company, so it may be too early for it to be included here. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your reply Kusma. Could you please clarify about the advertisement? Because I tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines, the tone of voice, not promoting the brand, having a more informational approach, etc. Do you recommend I ask for another person to write it? Regarding the independent sources, you mean more newspaper articles, or rankings, for example? Thanks a lot for your help! Juliafariasf (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Whoever writes will need to follow the WP:COI guideline and disclose whether they are paid to edit. Independent sources could be any of those explained at WP:RS, including newspaper articles. As to tone of voice and promotion: Something like "employs a unique pedagogical model based on small group teaching" is just marketing speak, as is "mission is to empower students’ full range of intelligence". (The prospectus of just about any university will say something of this type, while Wikipedia articles about universities usually don't say anything about a "mission"). —Kusma (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: @Juliafariasf. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kusma, thank you for your help! I have been reading a lot about Wikipedia guidelines and I will try to post a new draft following all requirements. Juliafariasf (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Entry: Slushy Vlogs

Hiya, I am quite new to writing new articles, please could you explain why you deleted the page, since i think this maybe a mistake. Many thanks Davey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey Ashe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The article did not contain any claims of significance. In fact, the article explicitly stated the topic was not very significant ("a small youtuber"). It thus clearly met our deletion criteria, WP:A7. Typically, we only have article about people that have been written about in reliable sources. —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: @Davey Ashe. —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Davey Davey Ashe (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For reviewing at least 7 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Resolution (Wilson novel)

On 19 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Resolution (Wilson novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that A. N. Wilson justified fictionalising the life of George Forster for his novel Resolution by saying that Forster "inhabit[ed] a borderline between fact and fiction"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Resolution (Wilson novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Resolution (Wilson novel)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Luise Duttenhofer

On 23 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luise Duttenhofer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Luise Duttenhofer died in 1829 after more than a thousand papercuts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luise Duttenhofer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Luise Duttenhofer), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 14,122 views (1,176.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

like i said at the nompage (when my pings were still broken): ezlev always has a good quirky up their sleeve :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Very nice :) Thanks @Theleekycauldron and @Ezlev! —Kusma (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Great article on Resolution, the A.N. Wilson novel. scope_creepTalk 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Glad you like it! It is part of my ever expanding Cook/Forster topic (currently working on Forster senior). And mmm, strawberries (the ones in my garden are almost ready, but the birds and slugs like them too) —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World

Hi, in this edit you introduced an sfn reference to "Netzley 1999". Unfortunately you did not define the reference, meaning nobody can look it up and adding the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix it that would be great. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the note! —Kusma (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Resolution (Wilson novel)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Resolution (Wilson novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Resolution (Wilson novel)

The article Resolution (Wilson novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Resolution (Wilson novel) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
For going above and beyond on Talk:The Sacrifice (Oates novel)/GA2 – researching new sources and offering numerous suggestions for improvement to the article. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It was a pleasure! Thank you for the barnstar Rublov! —Kusma (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World

The article Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Mathias Metternich

On 7 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mathias Metternich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mathematician Mathias Metternich was one of the founders of the Jacobin club of the Republic of Mainz? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mathias Metternich. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mathias Metternich), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lisa Kahn (poet)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lisa Kahn (poet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for AFN Frankfurt

On 9 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article AFN Frankfurt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that unmarried staff of the radio station AFN Frankfurt lived in a medieval tower (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/AFN Frankfurt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, AFN Frankfurt), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 7,651 views (637.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World

The article Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Observations Made During a Voyage Round the World for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lisa Kahn (poet)

The article Lisa Kahn (poet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lisa Kahn (poet) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lisa Kahn 1968.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lisa Kahn 1968.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you bot! I have deleted the image, as it has been superseded by a higher quality free copy. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A messenger award for you!

Messenger award
Thank you for trying to get the message out there at DYK! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Comics

Nice job finding info on Chninkel English version. Would you concur with my finding that The Witcher (Prószyński i S-ka) has no English version? Also, you may be interested in my work on now-GANs The Gods from Outer Space (partial English TL?) and Hans (comic book) (no English TL?), and non-GAN (yet) Funky Koval (also no English TL...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Hmmm, not totally sure, and no way to prove a negative, but I'll try to take a look. I know very little about Polish comics (looking through this, I think Rosinski is the only one I ever heard of). I'm more into the Franco-Belgians. One of my few recent-ish comics acquisitions with Polish connection is this one, but I enjoyed the original text more back when I first read it (in German translation, admittedly; I know essentially no Polish). —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Huh, didn't know about that one, I'll check it out. I am mostly interested in some vintage works from the time I grew up... sad how so little of European stuff is in English. PS. I'd think there'd be some good German coverage for Yans (Hans...) and Die Götter aus dem All... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I'll try to check some of this out. Just found this while searching for Chninkel (not helpful there) which may be useful for writing about Polish comics. If you have Taylor & Francis on TWL, you can access it (or via your university perhaps); if not, I can give you the PDF. —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting article, I'll read it. I should be able to access it, tnx! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

RfA Nomination?

Hello Kusma,

I've been pondering the idea of submitting an RfA nomination for myself and as I was reading through the RfA pages, I came across you on WP:RRN and wondered if you'd be willing to consider me.

A little about myself - I've been an editor since 2008 and I've made 10k total edits since then, of which 82% are live. I have created 1345 pages total, of which 65 have since been deleted or merged.

I've been mainly focusing on anti-vandalism and new-page patrolling on Wikipedia using a mixture of tools to help me do so including Twinkle. I have received some recognition in the form of barnstars for my efforts over the years, but these are not the driving force for me. In terms of CSD nominations, I've made at least 611, with most of them being accepted (see my CSD log), with a similar but fewer (about 135) nominations for PROD (log) and therefore I feel I have decent experience in this area.

My aims for adminship would be to help clear the CSD and AIV backlogs as part of this work, more than likely also contributing in UAA and possibly SPI, but this is not an area I've been very much a part of.

Of course, I'm not perfect - no editor is, and I do unfortunately have a historic 24-hour block on my account from 2008 when I was a very new and very young editor. I would stress that I have very much matured in those 14 years and have become a much more logical thinker (it comes with being a software developer by trade, of course!). I have also previously nominated myself for adminship three times, all of which failed, however my last nomination being 12 years ago.

I'd love to have your backing with a nomination, and I'm always willing to improve, learn and discuss. Looking forward to hearing back from you! Osarius 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Osarius, thank you for considering me! An RfA nomination is certainly an interesting challenge. I'll have to do more research on you later, but the five minute summary is: no need to worry about the 2008 block (and the RfAs are also ancient history now), but you have only a thousand edits in the last 5 years, with over half of them this month. It is likely that people will want to see a longer period of high activity before considering you as an admin. More later, will go back to real life for a while now :) —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Kusma. I do realise that my edit history has been quite sparse over the last few years. This was mainly down to not having the facilities to edit as I was room-sharing and house-hopping a lot, then comes the joys of house-ownership, starting a family and a global pandemic whilst juggling a full-time job. I've recently found more time to be able to edit, and it seems I've not lost the Wiki-bug and got right back into the thick of it. Wikipedia has been a huge part of my life for 14 years, and I always regretted the time I was unable to be as active as I'd have liked. Ditto on the real-life aspect, speak soon! Osarius 09:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Osarius: So, I have had a closer look. At this point in time, I don't think you have demonstrated all of the skills necessary for adminship. Let's look at a few areas:
  • Content work: I see a few stubs created and little that would show awareness of current sourcing standards. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatriz Romilly is the deletion of one of your most recent articles; I would like to see much better source work and ideally some content creation (it isn't mandatory but without content creation (a GA is enough for most people) there will be a quite some opposition at RfA, and there would have to be really compelling other factors).
  • Deletion work: Most of your recent noms seem to work out, but it would help to provide your own reasoning in cases like Ace Aura where you didn't provide much input and then nobody else did either. The speedy nomination at Nick Jonas videography wasn't great but not a terrible mistake. Nominating a page move (Deola village) as "implausible typo" isn't a great move. James Creedon (Journalist) had a clear claim of significance, bad A7. Overall, more contribution at AFD and clearer use of policies and guidelines would be better. Was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilico's while the page was on the Main Page? Most people don't know, but the correct way to deal with deletable stuff on the MP is to first use WP:ERRORS to alert people to the problem and get the link removed from the MP, then start the AFD. AFDs for pages currently linked from the MP can be speedily closed. (The deletion was correct and the page should not have passed the DYK process).
  • Your anti-vandalism and gnoming work is decent, but not spectacular. In 2007 this might have been enough to pass RFA but no longer. Have a look at a few recent RFAs to see what kind of candidates get through there.
  • Community participation: I don't really see you interact much with other Wikipedians, so it is hard to judge your abilities here.
I suggest to wait with attempts at RfA for at least a year, and to spend that time doing both what you enjoy and finding ways to demonstrate at least your content and discussion skills. Learning to find and use reliable sources is not easy at first (but Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, WP:TWL and archive.org all help) but writing Did you Know articles or Good articles is very satisfying and helps you get in touch with other editors reviewing your work who can and will help you develop your skills.
Sorry I can't give a more positive review at the moment. Your motivation and good faith are clear, but you won't pass the high bar that the community currently sets for adminship. —Kusma (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kusma, that was the response I was expecting to be completely honest with you. Thanks for taking the time to review, and I’ll be sure to put your advice into action! Osarius 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Good luck, and happy editing! —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying or Redirecting

On special:shortpages, I found this: Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and it's an unsourced too short article. But I can't find anything to redirect it to. So do I draftify it or do I add a proposed deletion nomination? N1TH Music (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: This is literally the same as last time: look at the history and revert. —Kusma (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see, I didn't think this page was redirected, but generally what do I do if there's nothing to redirect to? N1TH Music (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If you don't know what to do and the problem isn't urgent, a good strategy is to do nothing and wait for someone who knows to come along. For Special:Shortpages, the first thing you should do with any page is check its history to see whether the page used to be OK in the past. If there is no good version to revert to, then PROD or speedy deletion (if it meets one of a few strict criteria) are usually the best choices (in a super short page, there is not much to preserve by draftifying). —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Alright, point noted thanks for the information, in future that's how I'll work. So what are the conditions which I would draftify a page? N1TH Music (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Draftifying is best done in the context of Wikipedia:New pages patrol (see there for the complicated instructions); it is only very rarely the best course of action for a page that is not new. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma I was doing what you said and something went wrong I think here: Salix aeruginosa. An unsourced article with no history and my PROD has something wrong that I don't know how to fix. Do you know what to do? N1TH Music (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which clearly say that you have to use {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}. Instead, you used {{Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}. The error message links to Wikipedia:Substitution, which explains this in the second paragraph, and mentions {{proposed deletion}} lower in the text. —Kusma (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw Wikpedia:Substitution but it was confusing and I thought I'd done this before. Also how come somebody just moved the article to draft space I thought you're not supposed to with extremely short articles.N1TH Music (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I personally think it is pointless (but then, I do not particularly like draft space) but there are no rules against it, and different new page patrollers may come to different conclusions how to best deal with one specific article. If you want to know why the page was moved to draft space, perhaps you should ask the person who moved it to draft space. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton has given you some Potato pancakes! Potato pancakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some Potato pancakes, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Hanukkah!

I hope you like these...I like them with applesauce. Thanks for your contributions to the project! Bruxton (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of Potato pancake, you can add {{Potato pancakes}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Your GA nomination of Characteres generum plantarum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Characteres generum plantarum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  • Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Characteres generum plantarum

The article Characteres generum plantarum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Characteres generum plantarum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dracophyllum -- Dracophyllum (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

July songs

Thank you for a steady glow of GAs! - I heard a great concert by Voces8, pictured. - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for comments there. - I was away, more July songs from Swiss Alps and a funeral. I will get there eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Schöffer the Younger

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Schöffer the Younger you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Schöffer the Younger

The article Peter Schöffer the Younger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter Schöffer the Younger for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sally Ride

I have the article on Sally Ride up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sally Ride/archive1. Ride was the third woman to fly in space. This article is the second in a series I have written on women astronauts. As usual, I am in need of reviewers. If you could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I was already planning to review this :) But it could be a few days. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. There is no rush; it will probably be there for three months. It has attracted no at all reviewers thus far. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

  • New library partners
    • SAGE Journals
    • Elsevier ScienceDirect
    • University of Chicago Press
    • Information Processing Society of Japan
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August - Do you think you could check the cantata FAC again? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, I've been planning to do so since I came back from vacation (I think I came within ~10km of the site of your sunflowers, but I didn't go east of the Rhine this time). I'll have a look when I get time to concentrate (but I've also got a draft that should become a special occasion DYK on 21 September, and I've failed to finish it in 2020 and 2021, so I'd like to finish that now). Hope it will be soon. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I heard "wenn kömmt das schöne: Nun", and have that question regarding your return to the FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thank you! - Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your support of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, - partial or what, it helped making it a featured article. - images of a rich summer, especially in music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of An Account of the Voyages

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article An Account of the Voyages you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Kathryn Sullivan

I now have Kathryn Sullivan at FAC. Since you reviewed Judith Resnik, I was wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kathryn D. Sullivan/archive1 with a few comments? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, happy to take a look, but I'm busy IRL and stretched a bit thin, so please do not expect prompt service. —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fermat's Last Tango

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fermat's Last Tango you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of An Account of the Voyages

The article An Account of the Voyages you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:An Account of the Voyages for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fermat's Last Tango

The article Fermat's Last Tango you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fermat's Last Tango for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello can you help me?

I have a question and a Wikipedia portal sent me to you from the most recent active admins tab Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland, just ask your question, then we will see whether I can help you. —Kusma (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@kusma can you look thru my edit history on Aleksandr Dugin and tell me if it’s considered edit warring or not? I thought the edits I reverted broke biography rules of neutrality and vandalism so it excluded me from edit warring, but I still ended up getting banned, Wikipedia told me to dispute the ban with the admin who did it but it didn’t end well when I told him the rules I thought excluded me from edit warring and they became confrontational without answering my dispute after giving me the impression that he will ban me if I continue to discuss/ dispute it Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Yes, this is considered edit warring. You broke WP:3RR, a bright line rule, and then you were blocked. The consensus on the talk page (which people told you to use), where the "fascism" label has been discussed several times, clearly shows that this is not one of the exceptions to 3RR. However, you have only been blocked, not banned, and your block has expired, so you are free to edit. Going forward, seek consensus on the talk page before making similar edits again, and stay well away from breaking bright line rules. Edit warring blocks can happen without breaking 3RR. If you think content on a page violates BLP, you can also report it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of removing it yourself. —Kusma (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@kusma Ok I thought opinion based political commentary critical of someone broke Neutral point of view on biography edits but your saying I’m wrong? Does this mean the next time i break edit warring rules my account will be permanently banned? And yes me and another user brought it up using the noticeboard but it was ignored Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC about the matter already open at the talk page where you could participate if you are interested in the matter (and the people seemingly not engaging with your BLP noticeboard post may actually be participating in the RFC that is linked from the same section). Edit warring is likely going to get you blocked for longer. If you can't learn to work collaboratively with others, I won't be surprised if you end up banned at some point. —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@kusma By RFC do you mean Request for Comments? If not can you send me a link to what your referencing Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland, I am talking about this RfC, which you could have easily found by looking at the section on the BLP noticeboard that you started and I mentioned. I suggest that you participate in discussions there if you are interested in Aleksandr Dugin. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did and so did many others but our recommendations were ignored, is there any place that handles disputes between editors after neither side comes to a conclusion using the talk page? Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The general policy what to do is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There is an open RfC already, so there is currently not much to do about the dispute until that RfC comes to a conclusion. @Bobisland, you have made a grand total of one post to the talk page in question (and not to the RfC), and you have not presented any sources supporting your point of view. If you choose not to participate in the discussion and the RfC, your views will be ignored, and people will likely dismiss future attempts you make to escalate the matter if you deliberately refuse to participate in the current discussion that aims to resolve the matter (where there is some support for a position that seems similar to yours). So to summarise: if you are interested in resolving the dispute, engage with the discussion. Please do not post about this dispute here again, as it seems you are not looking for any of the help I can provide. —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok I didn’t want to repeat what other people repeated, should I be doing this to represent the view further or is this seen as redundant? Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I was also shown a rules for editing my own profile page but it disappeared and I didn’t get to click it before it went away can you send me the rules for editing my own profile page as I cannot find anything using the search engine Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@kumsa the user page rules Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted from talk page to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached

<snip>

There are two reasons: (1) One of my edits was reverted with no reason given. It would be better to explain what the reason for the revert was than to protect the page, because the overriding principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article at any time. (2) Another of my edits was reverted as a violation of Biography of Living Persons policy, but no explanation was given as to what part of the policy had been violated. Instead, the article was taken private permanently. This is a reflection on the good faith of the members of clergy who are trying to resolve this matter. Never in history has a church official been able to draw a 60,000 pound annual stipend while the cathedral authorities are preventing him from entering. A similar situation arose with the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Martyn Percy. No articles were taken private and he has now left the Church. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 12:29 pm, Today (UTC−4)

<snip>

I have read this policy in its entirety, and the sentence which stands out is

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant and well documented, it belongs in the article - even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

In the case of one article, the allegation is that the head of the press standards organisation stopped an investigation of a journalist who published scurrilous allegations against a member of the royal family. Multiple sources have been provided to confirm the truth of both allegations. In the case of the other article, a court decided that the most senior Archdeacon in the Church embezzled charitable funds. The decision has been cited. It is difficult to see what source can be more reliable than a decision of a Lord Justice of Appeal. Do you agree on that? (Okra is a very tasty dish much appreciated by my west African colleagues). @Deepfriedokra: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I was informed this morning that Kusma had issued an "only warning" to the prior editor of the two articles. My block and the semi-protection were both out of process because at least one warning should have been given to me. Kusma's log shows that he created this user talk page only after he had blocked me. Having blocked me he became WP:INVOLVED and should not have protected. He was promoted 17 years ago with 86 support votes and answered two questions. Had the correct procedure been followed the matter could have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. Now nobody can edit them, which contravenes the five pillars. Another reason for removing the protection is that I explained above why my edits did not breach WP:BLP and my argument has been accepted. Pinging Kusma in case he is unaware of the discussion. If there is no unprotection or comment here I will take the matter to your talk page tomorrow so that other editors can weigh in.

The matter has become somewhat pressing as there have been significant developments in the past few hours. Dr Adam has now been entered on the website as Archdeacon of Canterbury. This is only a cosmetic change - although the other two Archdeacons are pictured there is no picture of him. More importantly, the Archdeacon must be registered as Trustee of the Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance because he is ex officio Trustee by virtue of his office. The authorities have no intention of registering him because he's not Archdeacon. They also have no intention of appointing him a Director (along with the other Archdeacons) because they do not consider him to be a fit and proper person to hold a company directorship. @Kusma: to alert him to this discussion. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You (at both this and a different IP address, I see no reason to accept your claim that two different people would make these near identical edits) have not presented any published reliable sources for any of your allegations. You have also not explained why your edits did not breach WP:BLP, and @Deepfriedokra has not accepted your argument. I don't either. I am not WP:INVOLVED in this dispute, having no interest in the articles whatsoever; both the block and the protection are routine admin actions to prevent further violations of the BLP policy, which forbids unsourced or poorly sourced negative claims about living people in the encyclopaedia. Contrary to what you have said above, the talk pages of the articles in question can still be edited to discuss the matter; you will be free to present your reliable sources (if you have any) there once your block has expired. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Look at WP:PUBLISHED: "Any source which was made available to the public in some form." Court judgments are available to the public and the President of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (a Lady Justice of Appeal and one of the most senior Judges in that Court) has ruled that Dr Adam embezzled charitable funds. Again, Decisions of the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards are public documents. Given that, there was no violation of WP:BLP. If you want to continue to argue otherwise, you are free to do so, otherwise the protections should be rescinded. @Kusma: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The decision in question (if it exists) has not been published yet: [1] only goes until July 2022. As you wish to include the information, it is your job to show the sources, and they have to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is an example of where secondary sources were not good enough Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 1#Bight of Benin Protectorate. You are twisting the words of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Policy makes it crystal clear that if, for example, documents are retained in a library (as judgments of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and House of Lords Commissioners are) that satisfies the "Publication" criterion. Anyone can go to the Ibadan branch of the Nigerian National Archives and inspect the documents, for example. Again, your link refers to assertions, not facts. Obviously, if Amber Heard says in evidence that Johnny Depp bashed her and he says she bashed him that's a "he said, she said" situation. Once the Judge writes a judgment (e.g. finding that Depp bashed Amber, for example), that's the best source for the actual facts there is, and that judgment goes into the Library of the High Court. @Kusma: 92.31.138.0 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Writing in the Evening Standard on 20 May under the headline So how come No 10 escaped 14,000 pounds fine? Tristan Kirk reports that the courts 'began to share information, I dug into the legal papers and police evidence of Covid breaches, uncovering a lack of consistency, mystifying decision-making, and obvious signs of miscarriages of justice.

'A 21-year old Kingston man with a 10,000 pounds party fine was convicted after he had been written to by the police to say "case closed". A south London woman was issued with a FPN after she walked to Borough Market for some food and drink. A habitual beggar who twice refused to leave her normal spot in Tesco car park was fined 2,500 pounds.'

When a newspaper publishes facts and the report is cited in Wikipedia, no one disputes that the source is reliable. When a Wikipedia editor cites the same facts directly from the same source administrators scream "Gross violation of WP:BLP". The allegation is absurd. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

To believe an allegation about a living person based on your word that it is mentioned in some unpublished document would be absurd. If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this. If they don't, then your assertion may be true, but it should not be published in Wikipedia before it is published elsewhere. I have no idea why you are taking this to my talk page. If you find new sources, I suggest you make an edit request on the respective article talk pages. If you do not find new sources, I suggest you wait until they appear. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Please don't misquote me. I never said I was sourcing from "some unpublished document." To quote from the headnote of the relevant policy:

All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

In terms of the sources I used:

February 2022 Lady Justice of Appeal writes her judgment>February 2022 Her clerk files a copy in the Library of the Supreme Court>February 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder>August 2022 a Wikipedia editor enters the library between 9.30 AM and 4.30 PM on weekdays when it is open to the public, checks the shelf number from the index, pulls the volume from the shelf and notes the terms of the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.

August 2022 House of Lords Commissioner for Standards writes his judgment>August 2022 His clerk files a copy in the Library of the House of Lords>August 2022 The Librarian indexes the judgment and files it in a binder>August 2022 The Webmaster examines the judgments filed in the binder and decides which are of sufficient public importance to be published on the website (if by September a judgment has not appeared on the website it is likely the Webmaster has decided it is not of sufficient public importance and it will never appear on the website)>August 2022 Wikipedia editor telephones the Librarian, cites the case number and arranges an appointment to view the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor attends at the appointed time and is handed the judgment>August 2022 Wikipedia editor notes the terms of the judgment and hands it back to the librarian>August 2022 Wikipedia editor edits article citing the judgment after consulting her notes.

I don't understand your comment

If what you say is true, then other sources will also publish this.

This presupposes that a journalist will hang about in the Library of the Supreme Court on the offchance that a Judge's clerk will bring in a judgment which he will then ask to read. I don't believe that journalists do this, as their employers expect them to be out talking to people about stories and then writing a story and filing it with the newsdesk. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Things that are not of sufficient public importance have no place in an encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
You may have heard that Harry and Meghan are in Britain this week. A few hours ago they took the train from London to Manchester where they will be speaking at a conference tonight. What makes you think that the action of a Lord charged with ensuring the probity of journalists is not "notable" (let's stick to Wikipedia terms) especially when the investigation he shut down was into a claim that journalists falsely accused the couple of lying about the date of their marriage. Is it not notable that some journalists have an agenda of planting fake stories which are character assassination of this couple and designed to arouse hostility against them in the nation? 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep posting here. You have already convinced me that we should not include your proposed content at this time. —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Please explain to me why you think that sourced, notable content should not be included at this time. Please provide a detailed argument citing the relevant passages of policy and showing how those passages support the conclusion you have reached. If you don't do that then an independent third party can be asked to close the discussion, and if you have not stated your case by the time that happens I expect the close to be against you. 92.31.138.0 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
If you wish to propose any edits, please do so at the article talk page. You can use {{edit semiprotected}} to attract the attention of other editors. —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue is your unjustified semiprotection preventing everyone (not just me) from adding sourced, relevant and notable content to these articles. What I will be doing in the course of the next few days is copying this discussion to the relevant talk pages so that a wider section of the community can make their views known (I anticipate that a consensus to remove the semiprotection will emerge). 92.31.138.0 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked the IP as yet another sock of WP:LTA/VXFC. Favonian (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be WP:INVOLVED

Hi, my IP changed to 81.XX.XX.XX while I was typing this message so it didn't get through. Here it is again:

Please state the date, expiry date and originator of the block referred to in your message. @Kusma: 2A00:23A8:4C31:5901:EC90:D218:192E:4E8A (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The above message sent per WP:ADMINACCT was ignored. Why? You've been active since it was sent.

If, as you claim, you're completely disinterested, why was an edit from the above reverted (without any edit summary) eight minutes after it was made in the middle of a two-day period during which you were otherwise inactive? Step back, reflect on your actions, and listen to this [2]. 2A00:23A8:4C31:5901:1193:BF51:F674:ADD (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw your message, which seemed to be copy and pasted from somewhere and did not seem to address me (other than the ping). @Favonian: is this another one for your collection? —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes! It's now our collection, at we've both had the honor and the privilege of blocking 2a00:23a8:4c31:5901::/64. Favonian (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Muslims are watching Favonian closely because he has a record of indefinitely protecting articles of significance to their religion and their talk pages, thus allowing non-Muslims free rein to disparage their religion. He avoids direct engagement with other administrators on their talk pages, so to see the above comment on his contribution record was a surprise. Could you make a start at rolling back this abuse by unprotecting Islamic calendar and Talk:Islamic calendar? On the matter in hand, it is clear that you don't want to discuss the blocks of editors blocked by you on their talk pages, so it would probably be better for them to open a discussion here. 92.27.128.96 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
... and blocked again. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ulf Merbold article for copyediting

Hello Kusma! I am a longtime lurker who's come round to start proper contributions, after a few weeks of reading allll the WPs I could ☺️

On the guild of copy editors page, your submitted article for Ulf Merbold jumped out to me as a great first page to tackle. While I'm new to WP's specific MOS, I have more than a decade of English copyediting under my belt, with a particular focus on simplifying complex topics.

Before jumping in and "tagging" myself responsible on the guild page, I wanted to check:

  • are you still interested in a copy edit for this article? I know it was posted up a few months ago.
  • besides general flow, phrasing, and so on, is there anything specific you'd like addressed here? I reviewed previous conversations on the talk page, and it seems as though most specific points from previous reviews have been successfully addressed- just want to make sure I didn't miss anything!

Let me know what you think- I've been doing my small edits on mobile, but if I tag in to tackle this I'll do it from a proper computer setup. Thanks and cheers!

Chiselinccc (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Chiselinccc, nice to meet you! Thank you for taking this on. Indeed I am still interested in a copyedit; I am still planning to submit the article at WP:FAC later this year, and other than a thorough copyedit (mostly for phrasing, clarity and remaining indications of my German-induced bad habits) it will need another round of source formatting and checking (but I can do those myself). While you are reading the article, please let me know anything that jumps out at you that looks wrong or incomplete. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
One more thing: I would like to hear if you think there is anything that should be mentioned in the lead section but isn't, to ensure full compliance with MOS:INTRO. —Kusma (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ulf Merbold

Thanks Baffle gab1978, that's great! —Kusma (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I've only just noticed the comments from Chiselinccc there, so I haven't taken them into account. Good luck with your planned FA nomination and cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much Baffle gab1978! I'm rather busy IRL, but will go through your edits soon when I do a round of source checking before FAC, but I think I don't disagree with anything major, mostly a few hyphens here and there. On a sad note, I found out today that the article's creator, long time Wikipedian Ahoerstemeier recently passed away. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

  • New instant-access collections:
    • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
    • Project MUSE
    • Taylor & Francis
    • ASHA
    • Loeb
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kusma/Archive_41&oldid=1119041591"