User talk:Gronk Oz/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Cheers
Thanks, security upgraded. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Operation Renewed Hope
Saw that you put an orphan tag and self published tag on the page. I'm not a member of the government, so I don't think the self published tag is appropriate, but agree that it lacks sources. If you read the talk page, you'll get a better sense of how long it may be until more sources are generated. I' interested in improving the page, but not sure what can be done. This is a very important operation as it relates to the law enforcement community as it will result in 100s of arrests, but it's still very early.eximo (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jiwhit01: thanks for reaching out. Writing a completely new article is one of the most challenging things in all of Wikipedia. It is also a process of continual improvement, so stick with it.
- Neither of those tags is a problem; more like guidance for editors where the article needs work. The "self published tag" was removed (I don't recall whether it was by you), and I replaced it with a "single source". That can obviously be removed when additional sources are added.
- The "Orphan" tag simply means that no other articles have links to this one. Wikipedia articles don't stand alone; they link together. So that can't be remedied on this article; it's a matter of identifying other articles that should mention this operation, and updating them to link to it. Once that is done, this tag can be removed, too.
- One final comment: it is not necessary to put a ref on every line of sections like "Participating groups...". It is a matter of editor's choice. To make it simpler, and still be clear where the source is, one easy way is just to add a lead sentence along the lines of:
- The following organizations are involved in the operation:[ref goes here]
- Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, so please feel free to reach out with any questions if I can help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Gronk Oz:Thanks for the notes and explanation that helps. What to cite and what not to cite is a balance that I personally am working on, but I appreciate the guidance. I'm working an overall project to publish all of the HSI and FBI international operations, but I think some sort of template should be developed for them; there is a common set of information that any reader should/would want to know about an operation. Any interest or do you know who would be interested? eximo (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jiwhit01: that sounds like a very worthwhile exercise. There are certainly groups of editors who have a particular interest, skills, and renounces in areas like this. My first thought was to look for a WikiProject that covered this area, and a good candidate seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government. Start by describing your proposal and your work to date on the Talk page, and ask for expressions of interest. If you use a Watchlist, you can add that Talk page to it so you catch the latest. And it is good to "join the project" by adding yourself to the list. I don't know how active that project is, but it is a good place to start and meet other editors with an interest in the topic. If that doesn't pan out, you can use the WikiProjects search box near the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory to find a suitable group. It's not my area of expertise: I am not American, and I don't have much interest in any government (particularly what, to me, is a foreign government). I am happy to advise and help where I can in a general way, but you might find more specific help from the folks in a suitable WikiProject. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI, but it does not appear to be active - it only has one current member. By all means contact them via the WikiProject's Talk page, but I think the broader US Government group might be more help to you. (I could be wrong there, of course - I often am!)--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jiwhit01: that sounds like a very worthwhile exercise. There are certainly groups of editors who have a particular interest, skills, and renounces in areas like this. My first thought was to look for a WikiProject that covered this area, and a good candidate seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government. Start by describing your proposal and your work to date on the Talk page, and ask for expressions of interest. If you use a Watchlist, you can add that Talk page to it so you catch the latest. And it is good to "join the project" by adding yourself to the list. I don't know how active that project is, but it is a good place to start and meet other editors with an interest in the topic. If that doesn't pan out, you can use the WikiProjects search box near the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory to find a suitable group. It's not my area of expertise: I am not American, and I don't have much interest in any government (particularly what, to me, is a foreign government). I am happy to advise and help where I can in a general way, but you might find more specific help from the folks in a suitable WikiProject. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Gronk Oz:Thanks for the notes and explanation that helps. What to cite and what not to cite is a balance that I personally am working on, but I appreciate the guidance. I'm working an overall project to publish all of the HSI and FBI international operations, but I think some sort of template should be developed for them; there is a common set of information that any reader should/would want to know about an operation. Any interest or do you know who would be interested? eximo (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:LAYOUTWORKS does not say to add "List of" to its recommended headings of "Works" or "Publications". Skyerise (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: - Okay, I will go along with that. I guess I got misled because that section of the MoS is named "Lists of works".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, it is a bad idea to go on projects making changes which are only preferred by the MOS. It's a general principle that the original authors of the article choose the referencing style which includes the choice of heading in the end matter. See WP:REFVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." Technically, you should be going to the talk page of each article first and asking whether there are any objections to the change and waiting for responses before making the change. Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: - Sorry if I am being thick, but I am not clear what you are referring to; you seem to be conflating two different things. I changed the heading "Bibliography" in line with the MoS statement that
"Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear...
So I boldly fixed the problem, as I normally do with problems I see on any article - not all changes need to go to the Talk page first. I accept that it should have been "Publications" without the "List of...". I already apologized for that. If you think there is a reason to go back to the other way, then you're welcome to change it back, or to make the case on the Talk page. - However, I have not changed the citation style of any articles. I often fill in bare URLs, but as it says in the same WP:REFVAR that you refer to above:
...citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data.
But I have not even done that lately. So I am not clear just what you are referring to, nor what you would like me to do about it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: - Sorry if I am being thick, but I am not clear what you are referring to; you seem to be conflating two different things. I changed the heading "Bibliography" in line with the MoS statement that
- Generally, it is a bad idea to go on projects making changes which are only preferred by the MOS. It's a general principle that the original authors of the article choose the referencing style which includes the choice of heading in the end matter. See WP:REFVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change." Technically, you should be going to the talk page of each article first and asking whether there are any objections to the change and waiting for responses before making the change. Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that most of the MOS is optional, and that while improving things in articles that you just happen to be editing isn't a problem, many "projects" that editors make up are about things which the MOS does not actually dictate. So going about seeking out "problems" for matters which fall under WP:IAR is frequently discouraged - just as much or more so than using the heading "Bibliography" is discouraged. Two wrongs don't make a right. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: - it seems we have slightly different interpretations. I try to take the MoS as it is described in its own header:
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
To me, that reads that it is the preferred, and broadly accepted, style guide. Of course, no such guidelines can cover all situations, but my interpretation is that the MoS should prevail unless there is a reason otherwise. This is how articles across Wikipedia aim to have a consistent presentation for readers, rather than each editor making up their own. But that's me.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)- Sure, but they are only guidelines, which are allowed to be intentionally ignored; not policies, which may be enforced. Therefore they are subject to an implied consensus of previous editors, which is why it is polite to ask first on the talk page and wait a few days before making the change. It's possible that the former editors of the article used a particular heading on purpose... WP:IAR (ignore all rules) is, some think paradoxically, itself a policy rather than a guideline. Skyerise (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: - it seems we have slightly different interpretations. I try to take the MoS as it is described in its own header:
- I'm just saying that most of the MOS is optional, and that while improving things in articles that you just happen to be editing isn't a problem, many "projects" that editors make up are about things which the MOS does not actually dictate. So going about seeking out "problems" for matters which fall under WP:IAR is frequently discouraged - just as much or more so than using the heading "Bibliography" is discouraged. Two wrongs don't make a right. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Your contributed article, Put Libai
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Put Libai. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Putlibai (dacoit). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Putlibai (dacoit). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram: Thanks for letting me know, but I did not create that article. I did edit it in a minor way; sometimes I use AWB to check new articles, and it made a few improvements to this one. I think I might have then made a couple of changes manually as well, but that is all. And I am not surprised that it was deleted.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)