User talk:MJL/Archive 27.

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

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Futility

In that RFARB, when you wrote "bury a good point in some feudal attempt at being witty", I pondered on this for some time, imagining court jesters and other medieval scenarios. A day later when I saw it again, it hit me finally that it was probably supposed to say "futile" not "feudal". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Oh woops. Well, it fits here because it might turn out that Wander may go the way of many court jesters (lol). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why do you refer to her as "Wander" instead of "Wanda"? Primefac (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@Primefac: Besides being more gender neutral, WanderingWanda's name comes from a game called Shadow of the Colossus where the main character is named Wander. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Back at ya!

The Adoptee Graduation Diploma
It has been a long time since you needed me for anything, in fact, this is comically overdue. I really did intend on giving this to you ages ago, but never got around to it. You have gone from a struggling new user, getting threatened with blocks by admins you pissed off (don't feel bad, I myself started there), to an immensely experienced, established, and trustworthy user who is now mentoring others. Not that this sort of formality is remotely necessary at this point, but just for fun, let this mark your official status as Swarm's graduate-adoptee. Sorry it took so long, I am slow to trust (jk). Thank you for your contributions to the project. :) ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


The Exemplary Adoptee Barnstar
And while I know you have a "one barnstar per person" rule, I am making the executive decision to ignore a rule and grant you this additional honor, in the form of this extremely rare barnstar. This is in recognition of your substantial contributions to the project. You are one of the best users ever to come out of the AAU program. Keep up the good work. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Swarm: To be honest, neither of us seemed really interested in formalizing the process until recently haha.
This really means a lot to me, Swarm. I honestly don't know what to say. This seriously means a lot. So much so I had to make a new emoji to express my feelings right now haha. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

AOC RfC

Wow! That was fast! I'm quite certain I've seen RfC's with clear and obvious consensus go on much longer than 26 hours, but perhaps I'm wrong. In any case, I guess it doesn't matter anymore as that was looking like it might fail. Anyway, thanks for helping out! GrammarDamner how are things? 22:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarDamner: I mean, yeah it seemed pretty unlikely to pass; and when people know that, it is not the type of thing to generate goodwill amongst other contributors. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tea for you

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Benevolent human has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Benevolent human (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

Celebration~!
You have been one of the valuable volunteers of this great human innovation which has stepped into its 20th year! The success of Wikipedia is largely due to the dedicated editors like you. Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. Enjoy the 20th birthday anniversary of Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey - language parameters?

Heya - I saw your revert over on Parler; are |language=en really used for sister projects? I'm genuinely curious, I've never come across that as a policy on English Wikipedia, and I've been removing them the whole time, thinking they were errors included through the use of visual editing or Twinkle, or whatever it is. Is there a policy for their inclusion? Not wanting to demand a policy for their inclusion, here - I've literally just never heard it. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I kinda figured you hadn't heard of it based on your edit summary lol. |language=en displays (in English) on the other language projects and sorts them in a similar way to how |language=fr-FR might output. |language=en is probably the only parameter in the CS1 cite templates which is kept despite not changing its display.
I forget where it's been written down (if at all), but I know from experience it is rather helpful to keep |language=en in references because it has saved me personally a lot of time. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Huh! The more you know. Maybe it should be written down somewhere? Thanks for explaining! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment at AE

Hello MJL. I am not fond of limited bans because people don't always understand their bans, and they often get into disputes on what is covered and what is not covered. A broad concept like the Balkans is easier to grasp. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That makes sense. It's easy to forget newbies may not be as wired in to this stuff as the regulars are, so I'll have to consider that for the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ok

understood.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

closure of ban discussion

Dear MJL, you abruptly closed this discussion for ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing_a_ban:_topic_or_site? I am not sure what you meant by that and by referring to snowballing. That section contained information about the user's Wikipedia activities as well, along with off-wiki activities. If you could elaborate on the reasons for closure on the same page in detail, to make it clear for everybody, I would be very grateful, leaving important questions unanswered may trigger to similar discussions in the future. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura: Unless a user is actively taking part in violence or canvassing, their offwiki conduct should be of no concern to you. Even then, the solution is absolutely not to publish their information onwiki. That has never been how we do things here. You violeted another user's privacy; don't do it again. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

MJL, he published his private details himself on Wikipedia making them available for everyone to see, yet I'm violating his privacy? What are you going to do about the Azerbaijani anti Armenian wiki-propaganda club, of which the mentioned user is an active part and an award-winning "expert" of? Is it according to WP guidelines to fight Armenians in English Wikipedia, especially in that organised and government-encouraged manner? --Armatura (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, just saw this after my reply to you on my talk page. The terms of your IBAN mean you can’t keep having this discussion about the user you’re IBAN’d with anywhere on Wikipedia, including MJL’s talk page. The terms can be seen at WP:IBAN. The only place you can discuss this is when appealing. As I’ve declined to lift the IBAN, that’d most likely be at AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Armatura: Along time ago, I revealed potentially personally-identifiable information onwiki. If you started sharing that today, I would still call that violating my privacy.
If what you are saying is true, then contact arbcom privately. You don't get to just open up a user's IRL life to scrutiny just because you think something nefarious is going on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Sorry, I wasn't aware that this user had an IBAN. Otherwise I wouldn't have engaged with them on this topic. You might want to say something at AN/I about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I too was wondering about the abrupt closure. Can you tell me please, what was the closing rationale for the "do nothing" decision? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: The topic ban proposal was based significantly on speculation of another user's personal life outside of Wikipedia. You're welcome to make a similar proposal or filing a report at WP:AE. However, it should contain exclusively onwiki evidence. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So if there is uncontested evidence that a complainant's wiki declarations are untrue, then that evidence ought to be ignored if the evidence was obtained outside of Wiki. That seems to violate principles of natural justice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: This isn't about justice; that is irrelevant here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You acted as judge in a Wiki tribunal: of course principles of natural justice are relevant. Otherwise any decision you arrive at is not open to to scrutiny, no matter how arbitrary it might have been. Please don't bring Wikipedia into further disrepute by denying that its workings do not operate acco Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

According to natural justice. All is chaos otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Wikipedia is not a quasi-judicial body.
I am not a judge; I did not make a ruling. There is no wiki tribunal.
If you have an actual complaint about this user's onwiki activities, then you may comment freely on those matters. However, accountability on this website does not extend beyond it. Solavirum has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I will not tolerate any attempts by anyone to breach it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I contend that the policy document Wikilawyering tends to disagree with your opinion that Wiki if not a quasi-judicial tribunal. It states: "Remember that Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats, Featured Article and Good Article review procedures, and various other formal processes.". In which case, natural justice rules about what evidence may be adduced and the proper weight to give to evidence adduced would be relevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: I have left the possibility of a new discussion open if it exists soley grounded in onwiki evidence against the user. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-January 2021

Hello, MJL! Here is the January 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard. Pilot Project, trying a smaller and different style newsletter

  • Here are the events of January!!

Wikipedia News

  • Wikipedia is now 20 years old!! Notice a different logo?
  • There is now more than 1 billion edits on Wikipedia!
  • The Simple English Wikipedia now has more than 180,000 Articles! So close to 200,000!

Humor

  • Did you realize that the word "Humour" has been spelt wrong? I didn't until now! ;)
  • I hope you didn't edit Wikipedia straight on and Missed Christmas...

Notes

  • We are trying out this pilot style newspaper, making it easier for you, and our editors to use. Please let me know what you think about this new 'style' of newspaper!
  • The Wikipedia Ads section will be omitted, to make the flow of this newsletter easier. Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! Happy New Year! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate

...the template. Certain professions ....

Shouldn't I/we/this IP have been notified (via a change to the template) if the template was up for deletion? Please ping this IP if someone (such as the two folks who don't like that it's used for edits from this IP) to nuke it again.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@50.201.195.170: Certainly will do! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 11:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Closure challenge

Hi, MJL. I see that you closed the RfC Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? based on your decision that Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? is essentially the same subject. I disagree, based on the fact that these two discuss different sources. I cannot use just one and claim that some other source not mentioned in the question is also inappropriate. For that, I would have to use a different question. Thank you for considering this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Okay, but the real question underlying both of these RfCs is whether reliable sources support the claim that Bitcoin Cash is referred to as Bcash in general. Having two different RfCs trying to answer that one simple question is pretty redundant. If you need to re-word the first RFC a bit, you are free to do that so long as you note it in the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Long time no chat!

I hope you're doing well and that you're staying safe! I just wanted to message you to say hello and to let you know that I was thinking about you... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That's very kind of you. To be honest, I am rather distressed right now since my adoptee was just blocked. :( –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Shoot... I'm sorry to hear that, MJL. Don't be too stressed over it, though. I've had many disappointments like that on Wikipedia when I tried to help and mentor other users, too. It's a lot of time, energy, and work to give away to someone else that could've been spent on yourself (or other Wikipedia activities) instead. It can be quite a let-down (even infuriating) to see it all be spent just for the account to end up being blocked. My biggest let-downs were when I'd spend time helping another account just for them to be blocked for sock puppetry by a checkuser or as a confirmed LTA. It really makes you feel that your time has been wasted, and I was often left feeling taken advantage of and made a fool.
Over time, you'll learn to take those knocks and be okay with it. As someone once told me long ago, you have to "take the meat, and leave the bones" in these kinds of situations. Don't look at the negative things that happened, but look at the positive things. In the end, you gained experience on Wikipedia with helping others, answering questions, and being a good mentor - even if the result isn't what you hoped it would be. That's the meat that you take with you. The rest? Bones. Leave them on the plate and do nothing more with them. You don't want to carry bones with you; all it does is burden you and leave you with feelings of resentment and discouragement. Bones do nothing good for you. The meat, though? The good things that came out of this? Don't leave that behind. Else, you're just throwing it away, and that does nothing for you. :-)
Don't give up, don't stop being you, keep doing what you're doing, and definitely don't stop trying to help, educate, and mentor others. Experiencing frustration, anger, and other set-backs like this is a part of becoming a highly experienced, wise, patient, kind, and respected editor. You have to take the bad things, and work with yourself to set them aside and move on. It can be very hard to do at times, but with time, experience, and some growth and self-reflection, it becomes easier to do.
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have questions, or if you need anything. I'm here for you! Keep up the excellent work! You're a valued member of this community, and we need you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Just seen this unfortunate situation and agree with Oshwah, very well put. Sometimes when we employ AGF we get punished for it. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't AGF or that it's our fault things went wrong. Better to naively try to help ten socks than to scare away one person with potential to become one of our strongest editors. — Bilorv (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Deliberate misgendering on IHA's talk page

I don't mean to add to your stress, as I imagine this is a difficult situation for you, but I wanted to ask your advice regarding these comments [1][2] made by a user on IHA's talk. I don't want to stir up trouble, but it also seems wildly improper for a comment deliberately misgendering IHA to stay on the page, particularly after they complained just above it about transphobia on WP. Srey Srostalk 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros: It's fine, and you handled it well. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Really worried about IHA

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I imagine that you're quite distraught right now. Please take some time to relax and enjoy some hot tea--it will help calm your nerves Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You do outstanding work in helping new editors. Even if this doesn't always turn out the way we'd hope, and you have to endure on- and off-WP tribulations for your efforts, the net of your work is a great benefit to the community. Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A complement

I just wanted to let you know I think this was a well considered close [[3]]. It's nice to see a close that includes a clear weighing of the arguments and a clean conclusion as well as suggestions for future actions. Closing an obvious RfC is easy. I really appreciate that you spent the the time/effort to weigh the arguments when closing. That was a RfC I watched but decided not to participate in because I couldn't decide how I would vote. I think I would come down on the side of D for reasons similar to your closing but I didn't feel strongly enough or well versed enough to want to contribute. My interest made the sound reasoning of your closing stand out that much more. Anyway, hats off to you for the fine work. Springee (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Open tasks

  • As a reminder, the legacy javascript globals (like accessing wgPageName without first assigning it a value or using mw.config.get('wgPageName') instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to use mw.config instead. Some global interface editors or local interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See phab:T72470 for more.

Miscellaneous

  • For people interested in creating user scripts or gadgets using TypeScript, a types-mediawiki package (GitHub, NPM) is now available that provides type definitions for the MediaWiki JS interface and the API.
  • A GitHub organization has been created for hosting codebases of gadgets. Users who maintain gadgets using GitHub may choose to move their repos to this organization, to ensure continued maintenance by others even if the original maintainer becomes inactive.

Pending requests Pending requests

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

you're great

I'm sorry for the recent stresses over IHA. You're great. —valereee (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Teamwork and The Signpost

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for being a part of The Signpost in 2020 as a copyeditor and contributor! DTM (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-February 2021

Hello, MJL! Here is the February 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard. Pilot Project, trying a smaller and different style newsletter

Wikipedia News

Humour

THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE/NOT GOOD ADVICE. ALWAYS FOLLOW THE POLICIES THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS. EVERYTHING LISTED HERE IN THIS SECTION IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUMOUR

  • If you have a COI, and you don't want to declare it, don't! (For all we know, a dog could be writing [or rather typing] this statement ;) )

Notes

  • We have a new editor on our team! Berrely will be joining the TWW team as a proofreader starting from the next issue onwards! (No more typos now...)
  • The Wikipedia Ads section will be omitted, to make the flow of this newsletter easier. Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! Happy Chinese New Year! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No consensus / retarget closes

Thanks for the Anarchism in Somalia close. I recently created WP:NCRET, and the corresponding section of WP:RFDO, which may be helpful to link in such closures. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@BDD: Ah, that's incredibly useful! I've added a hatnote to Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means and a clarifying point to Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus. That will make this easier to find. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Closure of the R from shortcut TfD

Hey, I noticed you closed the TfD about the {{R from shortcut}} and {{R from template shortcut}} templates with a consensus to merge. While I don't dispute this, I'm wondering if you'd like some help implementing this change? Since I was the original author of the module you linked, and I am working on standardizing rcats in general. Secondly, I'm wondering why you didn't remove the TfD notice from the templates in question. Thanks Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elliot321: Well, funny story.. I kind of forgot about the provision of WP:NACD that says don't close discussions when you can't implement the result. I will go and revert myself now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't have closed that discussion to begin with. It's reopened now.
When you asked me why I didn't remove the TfD notices, I was about to say "Well, I'm waiting for a template editor to respond to my edit request." Things clicked right after that, haha. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
MJL no worries! I took a quick look through your contributions and you might qualify for TE, if you were to apply (seems like you've made a decent number of implemented edit requests, though it's ultimately up to the clerking admin's judgement). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Elliot321: I probably would qualify, but I worry about the perception of hat collecting. I already have four user rights, and I think when someone gets more than that people start asking questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
and that's when you do an RfA ;) (more seriously, I wouldn't worry about it - I have a decent number of user rights too, but since I use all of them semi-regularly, it's never been a concern for me) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I've reclosed the discussion now with the same outcome. I would definitely support you having TE: You have experience evaluating consensus and enough technical knowledge to make sure you don't break anything and would probably use it quite regularly. It isn't hatcollecting if you use them =). --Trialpears (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homestuck

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Homestuck 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey there! Just wanted to say thanks for defusing the situation. You're absolutely right, I should have had a gentler hand when discussing it with them but I appreciate your intervention and you explaining it to them. Jns4eva (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

Gillette

Hello, MJL! You were kind enough to assist with this request to update the Products section at Gillette. I've tried hard to find other editors to assist with subsequent requests, with no responses, unfortunately. Would you have a moment to take a look at this very similar request? Thanks for your consideration! EA.Ketchum (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EA.Ketchum: I'll be happy to take a look at it when I get home from work. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Question?

Hi my friend, I had a question, do you think this article I wrote is suitable for publication or not, and if you can publish it for me, I could not, I do not know why.--MNL (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@MNL: Why did you tag it with {{COI|date=February 2021}}? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I saw this label in an article, I thought it was good, I used it, was there something wrong?--MNL (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you publish this article for me? I could not publish it myself. I think I have not been given this opportunity yet.--MNL (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@MNL: Do you have a WP:COI with the subject? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I was not familiar with this topic, I just saw that it was used in a few articles related to dubbers, and I said I would use.--MNL (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@MNL: I guess then my only question is how did you take this picture: File:Hamoon-Hemmat.jpg? If you didn't take it, then that is going to be a problem. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I downloaded the photo from imdb because it has better quality than other personal photos on the internet.--MNL (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@MNL: That's a major problem. We need to get that picture deleted. It's a violation of copyright; please read Commons:Licensing. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
yes the right with you, please clear it.--MNL (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, I had a question, when will my account be approved to create an article?Can you not verify my account as administrator?--MNL (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    @MNL: I am actually not an administrator. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you were the manager. Can you refer me to a manager to verify my account?--MNL (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@MNL: It's fine! However, I don't think any administrator is going to verify your account at this moment. Just be patient for now, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that means my account may not be approved.:(--MNL (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help updating the Fund for the Public Interest page?

Hello User:MJL, this is Elizabeth, or User:CleanWater17. You helped improve the Fund for the Public Interest article in late 2019. It needs more updating. Nothing major, but needed, I think, to move it closer to ‘good article’ status. Would you be willing to review my proposed revisions? I will post them on the article talk page, or here, wherever you prefer. Thanks in advance. CleanWater17 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@CleanWater17: Sadly, I can't right at this moment of time. I have an article up for a good article status right now. I don't want to over-commit! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @MJL: I completely understand the problem of overcommitting. I'm going to go ahead and post proposed edits on the Fund page, and perhaps someone else who has been active editing there will have time to respond, or else the edits will still be waiting if/when your schedule frees up. Thanks for your help. CleanWater17 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Scotland ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  • Rwanda Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  • Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  • Botswana The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  • Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  • Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  • United States Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  • England Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Undertale Soundtrack (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spicy was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I'm not seeing enough *in-depth* coverage to demonstrate notability independent from the video game. [4] is four sentences long. [5] is similarly brief. [6] is not about the soundtrack and what little coverage of the soundtrack there is is mainly based on the composer's tweets - not independent. [7] is an announcement about a concert, not really coverage of the soundtrack as such; and while [8] claims the soundtrack was well received it doesn't actually discuss it in any depth. Are there detailed reviews of the soundtrack anywhere? Did it chart? We do have an article on Deltarune, Chapter 1 - but it charted, which qualifies it for WP:NMUSIC.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Spicy (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

womp womp. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homestuck

The article Homestuck you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Homestuck for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-March 2021

Hello, MJL! Here is the March 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Wikipedia News

Humour

This section was written by User:Canadian Otaku, I hope you enjoy it as much as I (Tsugaru) did!

  • If you edit Wikipedia around 1-5 AM, beware, as any admin could block you for being up too late!
  • It's really easy to break Wikipedia, just click here.
  • Ignore people telling you to stop putting "Hrrnngg,,,beans" on the article Bean (film), they don't know what good edits are.
  • Jimbo is god, and can do anything he wants to!

Notes

  • There are 2 new editors now, one of them Berrely, and CanadianOtaku. As mentioned Berrely is our new proofreader (typos beware) and Canadian Otaku is now going to be writing our Humor sections, I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks for joining us, and remember, if you want to join, just let me know!


Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Thank you for your recent VPP RFC closure

I try to make a point of thanking brave editors who take on thankless tasks. Your closure of the RFC on unhyphenated parameters is one such task, and I am grateful that you took it on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Upon re-reading it, I did have one question. You wrote: "As such, these parameters should not be advertised in documentation, hidden maintenance categories added (and etc.) while still remaining available for use by long time editors." That sentence appears to be missing at least one word, and it is unclear what "and etc." means. Did you mean "As such, these parameters should not be advertised in documentation, hidden maintenance categories should be added (and etc.) while the parameters should still remaining available for use by long time editors."
Usually, within the CS1 templates, deprecated parameters display a red error message and a hidden error-tracking category. For these six remaining "developer-discouraged" parameters, you suggested "maintenance categories", which is a separate type of hidden CS1 category that renders a normally hidden green message (editors can display the messages via personal CSS). An example of a CS1 maintenance category is Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv.
Can you please clarify whether it was your intention to authorize the tracking of the six remaining "developer-discouraged" parameters via a CS1 maintenance category and a normally hidden green message? Thanks in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: The green message like the way it is for |ref=harv. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention closure

You say in your closure "the RFC establishing deprecation happened more than five years ago". What RFC would that be? The one at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention very clearly says "establishing this uniform parameter name convention does not preclude the existence of any other alias for a parameter, merely that a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter", which is nothing like deprecation. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: You're right. I'll fix what I meant to say later. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that RfCs aren't a votecount, but still: by my count, there are 30 votes for A and B together, and 43 for C. Taking into account that a strong impression was given that A and B simply executed a decision already taken 5 years ago, and that C went against that decision (which turned out to be false during the RfC, and which undermined one of the two arguments for A/B rather strongly), I fail to see how this RfC is closed the way you did. As far as I see, there is no consensus at all to deprecate, remove, change, ... accessdate to access-date at all, never mind by bot (which is what is being discussed at the Bot noticeboard right now; the only change they see, because of the RfC close, is that the bot can't do the change just on its own, but it can continue making the change if coupled with other, more substantial changes).

Basically, the end result is that the opinion of the vast majority at that RfC is ignored and a superficial change is made, but the end result is still a continuation of the same pointless task because it is wanted by a minority. The RfC should be reclosed making it clear that there is a weak consensus against this change, that both versions should be accepted, and that no mass changes from one to the other (both directions) should be made, separately or as part of another bottask or through AWB or something similar.

Please reconsider your close of this RfC. Fram (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: The five or so discouraged parameters are not deprecated and will not be turned off. My reading of the consensus was that their functionality will continue to have to be begrudgingly supported by the CS1 maintainers.
I put a lot of weight behind comments like 'this from Phil Bridger as he was pretty heavily cited in the RFC. You also had several contributors who explicitly put Option B as their second option while C was their first, and the fact that (outside watchlist objections) the main reason behind C was that users wanted to be able to continue to use |accessdate= without any disruption in functionality.
Does this clarify anything for you? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I am very flattered to be mentioned in dispatches, but have to point out that my comment was not limited to the "accessdate" parameter, but was addressed to the 1960s' argument (or even 1950s') that allowing any commonly-used synonym for a parameter in any way inhibits the ability our very useful template writers to write good stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: Just using access-date as an example. The same thing applies to all the grandfathered/discouraged nonhyphenated parameters. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I must also point out that I don't see how the discussion could be closed as consensus for "option B lite". I fail to see consensus that the five or so parameters are "discouraged". I fail even more to see consensus for a future removal as described in "As such, these parameters should not be advertised in documentation, hidden maintenance categories added (and etc.) while still remaining available for use by long time editors. The five or so grandfathered parameters should only ever turned off following a later discussion which receives wide attention and clear consensus.". I similarly, again, fail to see consensus for the specific wording of "Therefore, the Monkbot 18 should not be run solely to replace the discouraged non-hyphenated parameters." (if anything, it should be "should not be run at all to replace..."). FWIW, the status quo ante bellum was "editors are free to use whichever variant of the parameter they want to and bot operators should not be encouraged to create a bot to enforce a particular one". The RfC could have possibly been closed as "no consenus", in which case status quo ante prevails. Your close, however, seems to put a lot of emphasis on Monkbot, watchlists, and previous discussions, while, as pointed out, that was not the sole argument of either the deprecate or the do not deprecate side. I ask, as Fram, that you kindly correct or retract your close. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. People were driven to comment in that discussion for only a few reasons, and I think my reading of their ideal outcomes was rather solid. Of course, this isn't an exact process where I can get everything right in one go, but I still think that my close is pretty well-founded.
To go point-by-point, I fail to see consensus that the five or so parameters are "discouraged". As many commentators pointed out, there was a discrepancy between the CS1 template maintainers and the average editors; both wanted different things when it came to the outcome of the discussion. What I am saying there is that most people recognize that the template maintainers discourage non-hyphenated parameters (this is just a fact).
I fail even more to see consensus for a future removal as described in... That isn't describing a future removal. I'm saying the developers can have their attempts to try to limit and track the nonhyphenated parameters all they want, but they are explicitly never allowed to turn them off.
Your close, however, seems to put a lot of emphasis on Monkbot, watchlists, and previous discussions, while, as pointed out, that was not the sole argument of either the deprecate or the do not deprecate side. Flatly untrue. Read the discussion and you can see comments like: Option C, stop the craziness hitting watchlists (although most of that damage is already done). or Option C per Aquillion. Monkbot should never have been approved. That was like a good amount of the discussion outside of arguing which is easier to type/read hyphenated or nonhyphenated. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, another good part of the discussion was debates about what should actually be considered the status quo, so I doubt a no consensus close would clear that up any time soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll raise this at WP:AN (to review the RfC close, not for any actions against you as that is hardly warranted for a potentially wrong close which was then explained civilly and at length). I'll drop a link here when I have done so. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Now at WP:AN#Closure review request for "Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention" RfC. Fram (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with editing

If you know the way to make a character table send me an message.--General electric p30ch (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@General electric p30ch: Yes? You'll have to be a bit more specific than that, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard-April 2021

Hello, MJL! Here is the April 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Wikipedia News

  • MediaWiki has a new logo. Looks great, doesn't it?
  • Did you get to see the April Fools DYK for the Main Page? If not, catch them here (Under April 1)
  • In the Beta Features, try out "Discussion tools" it is a very useful feature for replying to talkpage messages. You will need an account to do so!

Memorials

  • Pi zero has passed away. Our condolences go out for Pi zero and anyone who knew him. Thank you Pi zero for your service here at Wikimedia. We are very sorry to hear this. We will never forget your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and it's sister projects.

Humour

Tsugaru's Humour Section

  • April Showers can't Bring May Flowers, if the Flowers ran away to June!
  • You can't get in trouble, if you don't cause trouble!
  • The May Flowers can't be flowers if they are roses!

Please find CanadianOtaku's Humour Section below

  • Sadly, there was no edit war of 2021, maybe next year.
  • This joke space is up for rent!
  • You too can be a hacker by removing everything in an article!
  • Error 410: I dropped this joke and I can't find it.

Editor's Notes

  • Just a reminder that TWW is delivered between the 16th to the 20th of each month


Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This Issue was delivered to you by --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Long Time

Hello, how are you my friend , long time not hear from, hope you had a nice Easter, was wondering if you could help me again, hotter, first need to make the images smaller in art. AFI Lifetime Acheivement Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.73.80 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I hope you are doing well!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  • England Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  • England Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  • Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  • Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember 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 (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Vagabond Heart

Hello your friend, christened vagabond, and most suitability, lol. thank-you for your message and sorry oft he delay, i am good hope you are good as well. Writing in regarding to these article , AFL (American Film Institute) 100 Year series, do you think these have to much trivia based information, whilst interesting an article should stick to the basic's shouldn't it, they have so much added information now, they have become far beyond "Lists" , i give an example the 100 years...100 stars list the institutes top 50 stars of the 20th century, this includes 25 males legends and 25 females legends, these where chosen out of a bulk list of 500 entries, inclusive of 250 male legends and 250 female legends respectively, under section "nominees" , in other words the unfortunate stars that missed out making the list, do we need this section unless we are going to add all 225 that missed out, the list is about the top 25 only? what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.73.80 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture request

Could you please upload a picture for Carmen Duncan, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.73.80 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, there is already an uploaded picture of Carmen Duncan Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: That isn't free to use.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It can't be used under WP:NFC? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Duncan died in 2019, so I think a few people would still argue we can't use a nonfree photo yet since the death was too recent. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear MJL,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear MJL

Hello, how are you my friend, hope you are okay, congratulations on all your hard work, and election to PUBLIC OFFICE, well deserved, please i need an otter again, please monitor ALL my edits, that are numerous, most people are reasonably nice, although other write stupid things like "possible vandalism" rather silly or just plain rude and impolite, and not normally giving any such explanation. kindest regards

TheWikiWizard-May 2021

Hello, MJL! Here is the May 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Wikipedia News

Tip of the Month

This tip is one of the many ways to combat spam on Wikipedia:

  • On Wikipedia, articles either meet the General Notability Guideline or not. When you come across a new article, it is extremely important to determine if it is a real article, or just a spam article. Start with a search on Google, for reliable sources, if you get none in return, then look at the article for non-NPOV content, also scan the references section in the article to see what sources it uses, and check the 'other languages' section and Wikidata to see if it is on other Wikipedias. If other Wikipedias have the same content and/or a CSD or AfD tag (WP:AFD) it is likely spam or not notable, so you can then nominate it for deletion to get input, remember that CSD criterion does not always apply to these articles depending on the content/contex. Also remember to check for copyright violations via earwig's

Memorials

  • SlimVirgin has sadly passed away this month, you can read more about SlimVirgin's passing here
  • Moroboshi also sadly passed away earlier this month.
Our condolences go out to the editors and their families, thank you for your work on Wikimedia projects.

Humour

  • Got blocked on the English Wikipedia because of your epic hacking skills? Start hacking other Wikimedia projects, they ca- This user account is currently locked across all Wikimedia projects.
  • This joke is a work in progress, so I might drop some hammers.


  • This joke is 2 spaces away, so ａ🔨ｎ- woah that was close!

Editor's Notes

  • If you want to join TWW, please leave us a message!


Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here

To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This Issue was sent you by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 00:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 21

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

TheWikiWizard-Special Notice

Hello. Thanks for subscribing to TheWikiWizard, as you may know, the next issue of TheWikiWizard, was supposed to be ready and delivered to your talkpage (or the page you subscribed to receive the newsletter) on the 20th. However, due to Tsugaru (User:つがる) being busy with exams, and having some problems logging into his Wikipedia account, the next Issue of TWW has been delayed. The next issue should be ready in around one weeks time. Thanks for your patience and understanding, and we hope you will enjoy the next issue! -- つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 02:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL/Archive_27.&oldid=1045069959"