User talk:Srich32977/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

GA review

I'm thinking of nominating USS North Carolina (BB-55) for GA review. Do you think it would pass? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: I will take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: You'll sea I did a few edits and added hints. Basically the prose needs improvement IOT convey more helpful info to the reader. For example, she got hit by a torpedo, but did the armor save her? Was the hull penetrated? What repairs did the crew do? Similarly, the prose for post-WWII needs improvement. Does "holes" actually mean empty compartments? What has happened, verses what's going to happen with her as a museum ship? Can the single sentence paragraphs be combined? I'll put the article on my watchlist. And feel free to ping me. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I work on it for a while. Could you also take a look at HNoMS Kjell? On another note, this is the third time I don't get notified by pings, so I'll have to check my preferences. Thankfully I watched your talk page. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hillsdale

Srich, if the Christian college bit is incorrect, you will need to change the article text itself. The lead just summarized what's said in the article. If the article stuff is not well-sourced, by all means remove it. If it is well-sourced, it's not clear why the lead shouldn't reflect it. My only concern would be to follow the guideline you cited and reflect the article content. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

2nd amendment edit

Hello SRich32977,

I am new to adding an edit to Wikipedia so I ask your indulgence please. The recent edit that I had entered was reverted from the official site related to the 2nd Amendment as it relates to a recent ruling in 2017.

The wiki page does does not show any recent update related to the topic of consideration as it relates specifically to post DC v Heller and the Fourth Circuit Court (2017) decision. The updated edit submitted indicated a settled and decided case from 2017 Fourth Circuit court. The following link is a reference to a viable and credibly recognized source. [1]

This is not the only source of reference for this legal decision in reference to this case. If the original Court link for the decision is needed, that would be helpful to know.

My question is in the interest of accuracy and reference to currently sourced information. Is this not one of the primary tenants of Wikipedia? Perhaps I have mistakenly misunderstood the purpose of this site.

The reason I am asking is that I received a response back to the edit I had submitted. The response referenced to visit your talk page as a part of a reverted edit. Your response referenced that the edit was specifically "NOT CONSTRUCTIVE".

If the the edit submitted is deemed not constructive yet is a matter of documented court record (ie. not opinion) as it relates to established law from more than 1 year ago (ie. 2017), I would be quite interested in knowing all fairness how exactly this would not be considered constructive in addition to being considered relevant to the topic it was entered for as it relates to a final court decision NOT LISTED in the post Heller section.

If there is a specific style of edit needed, I would appreciate again in the interest of accuracy and currency of the topic, assistance in getting the proper style of edit submitted.

Your gracious and considerate response would be appreciated. I look forward to your reply. Thank You.

Sincerely, Rch000 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Rch000

@Rch000: Thanks for your inquiry. The 2017 case you discuss is an en banc affirmation of the 2016 case already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Thus repeating it is not helpful to the reader. Also, we should be using WP:SECONDARY sources for the WP summary of the case rather than engaging in our own (editor's) interpretation of what the cases say. E.g., the decisions are WP:PRIMARY, and must be used with caution. What you might do is edit the paragraph for the 2016 case – something like "The 2016 decision was affirmed en banc in 2017 with the court focusing on ....." You don't need to cite justia.com as the WP:RS; instead a newspaper source or law review article would be preferred. Regarding my messages to your talk page, please forgive me if they don't address specific problems. These are templated messages which don't always fit the bill. Feel free to contact me again for followup. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance S. Rich. I will say that the reference 241 was not decided in 2016 which is why I responded back. The information from reference 241 was for a petition for rehearing en banc BUT not argued or decided in March 2016. The reference I used was an independent 3rd party law site that lists the court case being argued and then a decision. The actual case was argued and then a decision rendered en banc AFTER the March 2016 reference 241. This is why I added the edit. It is not a repeat of a prior edit but an actual decision en banc versus a petition for rehearing en banc for the case to be heard at some date in the future. In addition, reference 241 lists a rehearing in March 2016 and therein is the ending of what occurred for that reference. Afterwards, the case was argued May 11 2016 and decided Feb 21 2017. This information was not referenced at all in reference 241. If one visits the link to the new reference I left, one would see the difference between reference 241 and my referenced link found at justia.com I hope that clarifies why this would not be the same information at all but an update to a prior listed petition to be heard (but not argued or decided). A new edit would indicate that the case was argued (May 11 2016) and then a decision (10-4 rendered) Feb 21 2017 by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I would hope that this would meet the definition of a proper edit in the sense that it is a constructive piece of information not included at all but a separate new piece of information in regards to an actual case (ie. not petition) so as to be useful to a further discussion. There is a brief summary on the new site referenced providing a short insight into the outcome of the case heard. Please advise if a new edit would be acceptable including using the link for the reference. Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Rch000 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Rch000

New article review

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billybon:  Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

TFA Elcor, Minnesota

Thanks for you edits! With regard to the URL for the Gilbert Herald, regrettably to this day, the Gilbert Herald has no online presence. It is a print newspaper only. Regards DrGregMN (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrGregMN: in which case I think the spaced endash, rather than hyphen, is the best WP editing solution. See: MOS:HYPHEN & MOS:DASH. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability on Dorm Room Fund page

Hi! I'm a new contributor on Wikipedia, and I wrote an article recently. It’s on an organization named Dorm Room Fund. Would love to get your thoughts on whether it satisfies the notability guidelines, whether we should merge it with the First Round Capital page, or whether it should be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorm_Room_Fund

Best, Massetto1 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Massetto1: I think I'd prefer that you study the guidelines and policies at this stage, rather than give specific suggestions on issues. (I'm reflecting back on how I learned about WP editing.) Also, there are various WP:ESSAYs (look at the bottom of the page) that give informal guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. There was a hacking attempt on my computer, via an expired firewall. The attempt was blocked and the firewall was updated. To add more protection I added a VPN program from my anti-virus provider, AVG Internet Security. As I understand the VPN protocol, it shows an IP address in San Francisco. But I really am Srich32977. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'll need to disable your use of the VPN in order to edit. Alternatively, you may qualify under WP:IPBE. Yamla (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hmm... Are you really blocked? you seem to not be blocked at all. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm really, really am blocked from editing articles when the virtual private network is activated. (I can edit my own user pages) So I'll try to qualify under IPBE. And, for now, I'll edit using my mobile device or turn off the VPN. – S. Rich (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Socialism

The question ought to be not the neutrality of a given *edit* (in isolation, mine wasn't, I agree), but the neutrality of the *article* as a whole. The article failed to mention socialist famines at all, prior to my edits. That's not neutral, as you are leaving out an event that has occurred under multiple socialist regimes.

That said, there could well be a more neutral way to describe socialist famines, and I'm certainly open to discussion.Adoring nanny (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Socialism has been the scourge of many in recent decades, but famine has preceded Socialism. I am saying that our POV re Socialism must remain neutral when editing WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you arguing that the article should not mention socialist famines at all?[[1]]Adoring nanny (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Your very insistence on the term "socialist famines" makes it clear that you are assuming an unproven causation, alias begging the question, which violates our NPOV policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Doug E. Clay

Could you explain why I am getting rejected they claim that the person is not notable enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Douglas_Clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csulaguy (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Csulaguy: Other than being the new head, there's not much info about him. Especially from WP:SECONDARY sources. Perhaps he will become notable in the WP sense later on in his term. – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Repealing the Second Amendment

Greetings, S. Rich. About Gun law in the United States, we can continue the discussion on that article's talk page, and in fact I posted a reply there a few minutes ago. But, sort of "off topic", in the sense that it's not about a Wikipedia article, you might enjoy reading this column by Chicago Tribune writer Steve Chapman. His opinion, or advice, is that everybody should stop worrying about repealing the Second Amendment, because (1) gun control laws can be made much stricter, if that's your goal, without repealing it, and (2) repealing it will not be politically achievable in the foreseeable future, and (3) therefore it's an energy-wasting distraction. You may well not agree, but his arguments are pretty interesting, in my view. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Buffoonery comment

Thanks for pointing that out, it wasn't a very civil on my part. That particular user's edit warring and obvious bias are frustrating is all. Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

'ts why I don't like tools

Under Wikipedia:WikiGnome it mentions "... and repairing broken links." Tools permit edits with the lowest gains, not necessarily the edits that fix things. Which is why I don't like tools.

(I beg your pardon for the stink, but I've been coming across bad tool edits for years. Viz. And in the cited case, the 250K editor blamed me for not fixing their unreviewed edit. Laziness, yes?) Shenme (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Original Research?

Thanks for your message. Sorry, but I haven't presented any original research on Wikipedia. I simply stated well known historical facts (eg. Jefferson was a politician) along with his own words. I've added more academic references of which there's a large supply.

As a matter of fact, Srich gave you a very careful and accurate explanation that can help you to improve your participation at WP. I have seen you repeatedly insert OR into articles on various subjects. I hope you will accept Srich's generous guidance. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
I do my absolute
best here, always.
... you were recipient
no. 1657 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kenneth Simonds

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kenneth Simonds, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: CEO of a notable company and multiple other claims of significance. Use AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 06:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thagomizer

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The cartoon is, and was, clearly credited to Larson, and there's a proper Fair Use Rationale. DS (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Date/year

Please note per Template:Cite book, date is the preferred parameter except for specific cases when year may be used. Hzh (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hzh: While template parameters allow for more than just the year, the real guidance is at WP:CITEHOW. That part of the Manual of Style says the "year of publication... " is "typically included" for books. My efforts have been to get consistency in the citations, hence my edits. E.g., years for books, and other stuff for other publications. (BTW, I've been traveling, so I did not see your note on my mobile app.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It's unimportant, but anyway, the Template:Cite book recommends "date" as the parameter name even if only the year is entered as the parameter. WP:CITEHOW does not mention any parameter name. Thanks for your effort in trying to achieve consistency. Hzh (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Srich32977, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Nihlus#List_of_World_Series_champions--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My guess is you aren't interested in discussing this further and if that's the case that's fine just ignore this and we will move on. however, I felt the need to document the incident while it was fresh in my mind. I have no problem with your involvement but because I mention your name in my write up, I felt I owed you the courtesy of letting you know (I can't do the same for the other editor because they've indicated I'm not welcome on the talk page).
I have one niggling concern, which isn't a big deal but I have a guess as to what happened and I'd like to change my speculation to fact if I'm correct.
You reverted to my removal of the incorrect information and left the edit summary "Please fix the specific problem and leave article improvements as is." this edit summary puzzled me, as I felt I was correcting a specific problem. I see that you subsequently dropped a note on an editor's talk page with the question "Can you specify where the error is?" because you are asking where the error is, I'm assuming you don't at that time know where the error is. I'm still puzzled why you did the reversion if you didn't know where the arrow was but perhaps you honestly misunderstood something and only later realize you are quite sure what the error was. Again, not a big deal but my write up includes my speculation as to your rationale and it might be better if I knew exactly what you were thinking.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, I just took a glance at your user page and I see a spectacular view of Joshua Tree. Although I'm on the East Coast, I had a nice visit out there when my wife was in the senior nationals for a tennis tournament, and I took several visits to Joshua Tree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Hey I love your profile and it's really nice and i've been trying to find out how to set up a cool profile for my wiki page so if you dont care could you tell me where you get all the cool tables and stuff like the "WikiGnome" one and etc. AntManSC (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977/Archive_21&oldid=876410451"