User talk:Patar knight/Archive 24
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Removals of breaks at Afd/Aldersley High School
You could have left them in place out of courtesy even though you felt the talk page is not long. I put the breaks because it is annoying having to scroll all the way up to click edit and then scroll all the way back down to insert comment. Is the "crowding of the log" such a pressing issue? Thinker78 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, it's simply not standard practice to have section breaks in AFD unless they are truly very long, which this page is not. Even if it should have section breaks, the length of the page does not demand five sections. Most of the breaks only had three or four !votes in between them, one of them only had one, and for some bizarre reason you inserted them in the middle of threaded discussions. Scrolling, on the page literally takes a couple of seconds. And by making one AFD page take up several slots in the daily log page's table of contents, it makes it harder to quickly see what AFDs are active on that day, and it adds. So whatever time saved for you on the AFD is dwarfed by the time lost by other editors navigating AFD that day. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- It may not be standard practice but even though it was not a talk page, I applied the principle in WP:TALKNEW, which states, "if a single discussion becomes particularly long, it may then become helpful to start a subsection (to facilitate the involvement of editors with a slower computer or Internet connection)."
- It was not some "bizarre" reason I inserted them in the middle of threaded discussions. I spaced the breaks according to my laptop screen's height (laptop has a standard 15" size), because, as I said before, the idea was so people didn't have to go all the way up to scroll -and lose the point in the thread where they wanted to insert a comment. I got annoyed enough about that that I thought my edit would be useful for other editors as well. I put some of them in the middle of threaded discussion because if I waited for the next start of thread it would have been too much space again, and it would have defeated the purpose of inserting the breaks. Scrolling might take a couple of seconds but the problem is losing the place in the thread where someone wanted to place a comment when it was not at the end.
- And I don't think including the breaks take up any slots in the daily logs' table of contents, which is probably rendered to include just the main heading of the article. Have you seen that happening at all? And if you are getting annoyed by a hypothetical situation of spending a couple of seconds looking at links, I don't understand why you don't empathize with my feeling of annoyance of having to deal with getting lost in the thread and wanting to save some time to other editors at the same time. And as mentioned, I think the breaks would have saved editors more time than any time lost by a possible hypothetical situation of an extra link rendering in the table of contents. Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- The key phrase there is particularly long, which that AFD wasn't. And while breaking it up your laptop screen size works for you, it would still be arbitrary for anyone who uses a different setup. For example, on my monitor, my screen can easily fit between 1.5 and 2 of the sections that you broke the conversation into. If a page is so short that you have to break up conversation threads with section breaks in order to roughly create equal partitions, that's a sign that the page is not long enough to require those breaks (or at least the number of breaks you're trying to add). If you add section breaks don't' decrease readability by breaking up conversations.
- It does take up slots in the daily log, because the TOC is just an ordinary TOC. While each AfD is transcluded individually, the TOC includes every subsection in all of the transcluded AfDs. So each of the four arbitrary section breaks you put in pushed every other entry on the TOC that day down four lines. It's not a hypothetical scenario, and you are wasting time for people who use the log page for AfD maintenance work. Also, if you do add section breaks, they should be lvl 3 breaks, so it would at least appear indented in the TOC, and avoids any hypothetical issues with AfD scripts that might use a lvl 2 header to recognize the end point of an AfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and the info. You brought an important point to the discussion, determining what constitutes "particularly long". As you said, for you it wasn't long. But for me it was. I think taking into account that, a good criteria to go by in determining "particularly long" is if the discussion goes further than one browser height using a screen resolution of 1920x1080 it can be considered "particularly long", as apparently at least 89% of a sample of computer users used a resolution with a "height" (the second part of the resolution number) equal or lower to 1080. [1]. Given that my computer doesn't have that resolution I will use the zoom feature on my browser to put the size to 67% to emulate a higher resolution, and place the breaks accordingly, using level 3 headings. I think that's a good compromise. What do you think? Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- One browser height is certainly too short and if applied would result in a rapid overcrowding of TOCs across the site. For an example of the typical length given to section breaks, take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed, there in the highly edited survey the section lengths between the breaks average out to about 6 browser heights. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and the info. You brought an important point to the discussion, determining what constitutes "particularly long". As you said, for you it wasn't long. But for me it was. I think taking into account that, a good criteria to go by in determining "particularly long" is if the discussion goes further than one browser height using a screen resolution of 1920x1080 it can be considered "particularly long", as apparently at least 89% of a sample of computer users used a resolution with a "height" (the second part of the resolution number) equal or lower to 1080. [1]. Given that my computer doesn't have that resolution I will use the zoom feature on my browser to put the size to 67% to emulate a higher resolution, and place the breaks accordingly, using level 3 headings. I think that's a good compromise. What do you think? Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- And I don't think including the breaks take up any slots in the daily logs' table of contents, which is probably rendered to include just the main heading of the article. Have you seen that happening at all? And if you are getting annoyed by a hypothetical situation of spending a couple of seconds looking at links, I don't understand why you don't empathize with my feeling of annoyance of having to deal with getting lost in the thread and wanting to save some time to other editors at the same time. And as mentioned, I think the breaks would have saved editors more time than any time lost by a possible hypothetical situation of an extra link rendering in the table of contents. Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ireland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Emmerson Mnangagwa
Hi, thanks for your correction of my edit on Emmerson Mnangagwa. I was replacing a bunch of maintenance templates which had been removed without explanation by a new user, and didn't realize those particular ones didn't need to be replaced. I very much appreciate the correction! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- They had been justifiably removed for days, especially the tag for sources, which I had to resolve for the article to appear on the main page on ITN in the first place. Just because something is removed without explanation by a new user does not mean that it's wrong and automatically has to go back up. You just have to be more careful and independently assess things for yourself. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
- Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
- A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.
Miscellaneous
- Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Question
I don't understand your keeping of Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. Per WP:RCAPS: However, if the capitalization difference is implausible, unnatural, or novel, it may be considered unhelpful and be deleted. They are implausible as they are not proper nouns in any context. Please explain. Nihlus 03:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a title case capitalization that is found in the titles of many books on the subject. [1] And it's not that unlikely, the page was created at that title in the first place. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many doesn't equal one, which is all I found, and the fact that a book title exists with it capitalized doesn't really mean much since the majority of book titles are capitalized. The fact that it was created with that title is further irrelevant, so I still see no valid point as to why you declined it. Nihlus 04:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- My bad, I pasted the URL for the 4th page. There's many examples from the first three pages. [2][3][4][5][6][7] If someone created an article at that title, then as long as it's a reasonable alternate capitalization, then it's not unreasonable that someone else might try and recreate an article at that title and thus create duplicate it in the future. If believe that the redirect is actively harmful, you're free to nominate it at WP:RFD.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- No thanks; I'm not going to continue beyond this post as it is evident that I am merely wasting my time (as administrators seemingly can only direct users to XfD/AN instead of apparently evaluating their decisions). The books you provide all have summaries where the phrase is lower case in its use. Additionally, by the logic in your last sentence, every article creation should be kept regardless of its capitalization scheme, which is clearly nonsense. Had the article been stable before this, I could possibly see keeping it in order to aid the use of incoming links, but that is not the case. Nihlus 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they didn't evaluate their decision. All of the books use title case capitalization in their titles that is inline with the redirect's, and the Richard Thomson source (the second-last one), capitalizes "Illuminated" and "Manuscript" in its text as well. As for my last sentence, I said that the justification applied "as long as it's a reasonable alternative capitalization". If the article had been created at BYZANTINE illuminated Manuscripts, then it should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you go through my edits and find other CSD's to decline? I find this continued behavior inappropriate. Nihlus 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did not go through your edits. That page was another open CSD candidate in the CSD queue, which is where I do a good deal of my admin work. I merely declined it for the same reasons I declined the other one. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you go through my edits and find other CSD's to decline? I find this continued behavior inappropriate. Nihlus 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they didn't evaluate their decision. All of the books use title case capitalization in their titles that is inline with the redirect's, and the Richard Thomson source (the second-last one), capitalizes "Illuminated" and "Manuscript" in its text as well. As for my last sentence, I said that the justification applied "as long as it's a reasonable alternative capitalization". If the article had been created at BYZANTINE illuminated Manuscripts, then it should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- No thanks; I'm not going to continue beyond this post as it is evident that I am merely wasting my time (as administrators seemingly can only direct users to XfD/AN instead of apparently evaluating their decisions). The books you provide all have summaries where the phrase is lower case in its use. Additionally, by the logic in your last sentence, every article creation should be kept regardless of its capitalization scheme, which is clearly nonsense. Had the article been stable before this, I could possibly see keeping it in order to aid the use of incoming links, but that is not the case. Nihlus 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- My bad, I pasted the URL for the 4th page. There's many examples from the first three pages. [2][3][4][5][6][7] If someone created an article at that title, then as long as it's a reasonable alternate capitalization, then it's not unreasonable that someone else might try and recreate an article at that title and thus create duplicate it in the future. If believe that the redirect is actively harmful, you're free to nominate it at WP:RFD.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many doesn't equal one, which is all I found, and the fact that a book title exists with it capitalized doesn't really mean much since the majority of book titles are capitalized. The fact that it was created with that title is further irrelevant, so I still see no valid point as to why you declined it. Nihlus 04:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Patar knight. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
|
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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi After the AfD, the merging have been done, so could you close the request merge ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I see this has been done. Probably better, since I !voted in both discussions, and someone ardently opposed to it might have tried to start accusations of INVOLVED if I did. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madonna (EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Robert E. Lee
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert E. Lee. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Warren Allmand
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warren Allmand 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 Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Warren Allmand
The article Warren Allmand you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Warren Allmand for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
Administrator changes
Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Technical news
- The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.
Arbitration
- Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.
Please comment on Talk:Zeila
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeila. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
|
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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
- News and notes: Communication is key
- In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media
- Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics
- Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count
- Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers
- Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
- Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017
Why are some websites allowed and not others?
You recently deleted my page for Talent Recap, a website that covers talent competitions. It is, in fact, the only such site in the world (as far as I can tell).
I don't understand this decision, especially since the page was only created a few hours ago, and more links and citations were coming from me -- and I assume others, since the site has almost 800,000 YouTube subscribers and counts many talent competition stars and judges among its fans.
I'm particularly confused by a site like Show-Score, which is of no significance or consequence, yet gets to have a Wikipedia page. Show-Score has a blog, like Talent Recap; it interviews celebrities, like Talent Recap; it produces videos on Facebook, while Talent Recap produces videos on YouTube. Show-Score is not famous and is not owned by any major media entity.
I don't understand how Show-Score is awarded a Wikipedia page, when a similar site like Talent Recap is not. But I want to understand. Or to see Show-Score removed from Wikipedia.
Would you mind taking the time to explain the decision to me? I've never had any of my pages deleted and it's really confusing me. If Show-Score has a page, why not Talent Recap? And if Talent Recap is "just a website," why isn't Show-Score removed as well?
I want there to be a Talent Recap page so I can add yet another new page creation to my Wikipedia resume. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to make the page happen. I look forward to working with you to achieve that goal.
Thank you for time and consideration.
QuarterbackSneak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- The page was deleted through WP:A7 for not making a credible claim of significance. Simply having a website, conducting interviews, and making videos on FB/YouTube on a niche topic is not a credible claim; thousands of those exist, the overwhelming majority of which are not notable. Since that was all the only credible claim of significance in the article at the time and reliable, independent, in-depth third party coverage of the website was not present in the article or through a quick Google search, I deleted it. Looking at the Show-Score article, it's immediately evident that it is notable, or at the very least, has a credible claim of significance. It's been covered in-depth, by among other outlets, Variety, ABC, The New York Times, and the Associated Press. If there is similar levels of coverage from equally reliable sources for Talent Recap, then it deserves an article, and I would be happy to restore it if you can show that such sources exist.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Patar, thanks for your response. I believe Talent Recap does have similar coverage. If and when I can find them, I'll add them, and take you up on your offer to restore the page. I had hoped that breaking exclusive entertainment news, interviewing celebrities, and giving awards to celebrities (who accept the awards and share the info on social media) would be enough for a "credible claim to significance," but I see Wikipedia has raised the bar. I'll do what I can to bring the Talent Recap page within these new parameters. Again, thank you for your help. QuarterbackSneak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll be waiting for those sources. There's plenty of niche sites which break entertainment news, interview prominent people in their field, and give awards to those people, including many that I personally follow (and would love to have Wikipedia articles on them) which are obviously the premier outlet for such news in that niche. However, without independent sources to tell us why those outlets are notable, there's no basis for a Wikipedia article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Patar, thanks for your response. I believe Talent Recap does have similar coverage. If and when I can find them, I'll add them, and take you up on your offer to restore the page. I had hoped that breaking exclusive entertainment news, interviewing celebrities, and giving awards to celebrities (who accept the awards and share the info on social media) would be enough for a "credible claim to significance," but I see Wikipedia has raised the bar. I'll do what I can to bring the Talent Recap page within these new parameters. Again, thank you for your help. QuarterbackSneak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Christine Fair
You beat me to it. The editor was a student editor in 2016. I've raised the earlier material at WP:BLPN. She's obviously a target for some people. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- If I had to guess it's this Reddit thread where the article gets linked a lot. Would explain dormant accounts joining in. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of France
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
Administrator changes
- None
- Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
- Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
- A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
- Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible
- Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles
- Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative
- Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues
- In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations
- Humour: You really are in Wonderland
The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
|
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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
G5 decline
Why you declined this G5? G5 was declined by an editor (not admin)[8] before who made no substantial edits and recently a few articles have been deleted that were tagged as G5 even if others wanted them to be there and no one substantially edited the article.
@Adamgerber80: wanted a merge[9] but it can be done without having the article in place as well.
Article lacks any substantial edits anyway, you can read this AN thread, that I had opened for clarifying what is considered as substantial, none of these edits of this article other than a single edit made by the creator (a paid editing sock puppet) are substantial.
Pinging @Anthony Bradbury and TonyBallioni: since they were involved in similar dubious G5 deletions last month. Capitals00 (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- It was a good decline. G5 is the most controversial CSD criterion, and having a diversity of opinion in the admin corps on its usage is a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- AFDed now. Capitals00 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The primary reason for declining was because another editor had already declined it in good faith. As stated in the lede of WP:CSD, any editor except the creator can remove a speedy tag, so the fact that Mar4d is not an admin is irrelevant. Even if you disagree that the other edits made to the page are substantial, an edit that invokes WP:BANREVERT to vouch for the content subject to CSD should certainly be seen as substantial. Even if from a technical standpoint it's not substantial, the implication is something like "I have read the content, looked at the sources, and think that this is a valid article", which combined with other minor and debatably "substansial" edits is enough to justify declining.
- Reading your AN link, that conversation just shows that two people thought the idea of whether minor cleanup edits were substantial was a borderline case that could go either way. The page in question there was deleted after the only other person to make an arguably substansial edit said he did not care if the page was deleted or not, which is not the case here. As for merging, that would militate against deleting the article, since Wikipedia has a legal obligation to publicly attribute all content to their contributors, which cannot be done if the article from which content is merged is deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think G5 is tricky enough that unless someone is explicitly taking ownership of the edits and not challenging it on a technical ground, any user is justified in restoring a G5 so that an admin can review it. In this case, it wouldn't apply as someone specifically took responsibility under BANREVERT, but if it weren't for that, I personally don't see any substantial contributions to the article. Again, not a critique of your decline, which I think was good, but more of musing outloud regarding the complexities of how to deal with G5s. (Also, from a technical copyright point, merge and delete is very much possible, it just requires a bit of additional work either through edit summary attribution or a talk subpage. Whether or not it is worth it largely depends on the type of content being merged and what the reasons are for deletion). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
- News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
- Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back
- Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases
- Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain
- Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history
- Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks
United States military occupation
As someone who has been a party on this topic, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes (as well as on [[talk:User talk:GreenMeansGo#Yo, Shield o' Sham-er]] and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look on it. In the last go around, everyone was so caught up in the discussion on the actual merits of inclusion, that no one brought up that refs shouldn't be appearing in DAB pages anyway (WP:DABREF), which the other party insisted on. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Medri Bahri
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Medri Bahri. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
Administrator changes
- Lourdes†
- AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
- † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.
Guideline and policy news
- The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
- Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
- A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
- A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
- CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
- The edit filter has a new feature
contains_allthat edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.
Obituaries
- Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Speedy deletion nomination of Meme in human form
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Meme in human form, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 00:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Morlachs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Morlachs. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Good job on the "Ontario general election, 2018" article
I was just wondering what happened there when I saw someone had reverted the page. Good job! The rererecount is still going! Half an hour... 2607:FEA8:8760:FC9:80FE:665D:211D:EDBC (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
|
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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (2nd nomination), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Tea Queens (2nd nomination) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Black genocide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the busiest airports in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 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)
material removed as contentious per WP:BLP
Requires a specific consensus which pays attention to Wikipedia policy for reinsertion. Such has not occurred. Collect (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- It was removed before and there was a consensus in an RFC to include it. You're late to the merry-go-round @Collect:. Nixon Now (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I looked and found no consensus sufficient for re-insertion where there is a policy issue raised. The original article does not make the criminal allegation as a fact. And the Atlantic article does not do so either. Collect (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- As I've said elsewhere, the Globe and Mail actually has gone on the record asserting that the allegations are factual, so you are mistaken. As for the consensus, last time I counted the RFC was running more than 2:1 in favour of inclusion, thus passing the consensus threshold. Nixon Now (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'll just echo what Nixon Now has said. There's a clear, policy-based consensus to include the material in the RFC on the talk page. The original G&M article cleary is asserting that the claims are factual, and the subsequent reporting by multiple reliable sources, both in Canada and internationally, is sufficient for inclusion. You may have a point if we used Wikipedia's voice to assert that Mr. Ford was a hashish dealer, but we don't. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I looked and found no consensus sufficient for re-insertion where there is a policy issue raised. The original article does not make the criminal allegation as a fact. And the Atlantic article does not do so either. Collect (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
- News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.
- Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.
- Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers
- Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs
- Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.
- Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.
- Humour: WikiWorld Reruns
| 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |