User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 10
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Wikipedia Books
Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176#Suppress_rendering_of_Template:Wikipedia_books Dirk Hünniger (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers 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. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup 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. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Kifli
Hey, Wugapodes! I'm working on Kifli, which is scheduled for a PotD appearance January 20, and I'd like to make sure we don't link from the main page to an article that is just plain embarrassing. It's got some linguistics (mostly a list of the name of the item in various languages). Would you have time to take a look? I'm not looking for more than what you'd normally do if you woke up Jan 20, clicked to the PotD, and thought "ai, geez, that's an obvious error and I can fix it in three minutes." --valereee (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: No problem! Congrats on the PotD! — Wug·a·po·des 14:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, it's not my image! I just saw a PotD of food (an editing interest of mine) that didn't have a blurb, and when I looked at the article it was clear it was going to be very difficult to write the blurb from that article, so I've been trying to get the article into shape. And thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Capricorn
If "mark as patrolled" is checked, along with a redirect category change, if the patrolling fails, the category change fails too. Intended behaviour? --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: Not intended behavior, but I'm having trouble reproducing this. Do you know what page you encountered this behavior on or the reason the redirect couldn't be patrolled? — Wug·a·po·des 14:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe it was API error: (revision no.) can't be patrolled because it is too old" and the page was Criticisms of Marxism. I tried reproducing it right now and I was unable to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 January. It will be on all wikis from 9 January (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Open review
Template:Open review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can no longer read Wikimedia wikis if your browser use very old TLS. This is because it is a security problem for everyone. It can lead to downgrade attacks. Since 9 December you just see a warning. Soon the browser will not connect to the wikis at all. Most are users on Android systems older than 4.4. You can read the browser recommendations. [2]
- Special:LinkSearch has been moved from the "Redirecting special pages" section on Special:SpecialPages to the "Lists of pages" section. [3]
Changes later this week
Wikis can protect pages so that only some users can edit them. The standard protection levels are Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access and Require administrator access. If your wiki use more protection levels the technical name might be renamed for standardisation. This doesn't affect what users see. [4]- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 January. It will be on all wikis from 16 January (calendar).
Future changes
- Deepcat and Catgraph will stop working. This will happen at the end of January. This is because you can now use the normal search function instead. [5]
- You can use
<ref follow="…">to merge footnotes that follow each other. It is meant to be used for digitised books on Wikisource. If the order of the footnotes is wrong no error was shown but the bad <ref> was shown outside the <references /> list. This will change and you will see an error message instead. [6]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
WugBot down?
Wugapodes, WugBot hasn't made an edit since 01:01, even though there were DYK nominations to move and/or delete at the next run two hours later, and of course every two hours after that. I'm not sure what's causing the problem—there's nothing obvious on the Nominations page or the Approved page, but I could easily be missing something—or the bot could simply be down. Thanks for taking a look to see what's up. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: There's been a change in the server software which I wasn't aware of, so it may take me a tad longer than usual to resolve. I'll get it up and running ASAP. Thanks as always for the vigilance! — Wug·a·po·des 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what happened, but the bot seems to be working again? I think someone on the sysadmin side updated Pywikibot and it didn't go well causing the bot to stop running temporarily. It ran by itself at 21:00 UTC, and it ran fine when I started it manually just now. — Wug·a·po·des 22:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 January. It will be on all wikis from 23 January (calendar).
Future changes
- There is a new suggestion for what to show when someone edits without registering an account. This is to give unregistered editors better privacy and make some anti-vandalism work go faster. You can give feedback.
- Pywikibot is a Python library to automate work on wikis. It will no longer support Python 2. Use the
python2tag if you need to continue running Python 2 scripts. The Pywikibot team strongly recommends to migrate to Python 3. You can get help to do so. [7] - The weekly MediaWiki branch cut will soon become automated. The timing for this cut may change. You can discuss in Phabricator if this affects you. [8]
- You can read about coming technical events and mentoring interns.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Your input is requested
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Grace VanderWaal RfC
Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for jumping in to help with the ANI discussion. Do you think it would be inappropriate for me to start a BLPN discussion about the reliability of the sources for the current RfC, currently used in the article? Some major reliability problems have been brought up by Barkeep49 [9], and there's a verifiability problem with using the Forbes profile. Having a noticeboard discussion during an RfC shouldn't in my mind be a problem, but this RfC is a bit of a powderkeg... --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ronz doesn't get what he or she wants, so he/she requests an RfC and starts a concurrent ANI, where everyone notes Ronz's obsessive behavior problems. Then he/she passive-aggressively asks if a BLPN would be a good idea. When will the wikilawyering end? Wug, if you look at the history of Ronz's "contributions" to the VanderWaal page, I think you will see persistent disruptive behavior and his/her usual insistence that only he/she knows the correct meaning of WP policies and guidelines and only he/she can decide what weight should be give to the various sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ssilvers. If you'd answer my question about 2018 vs 2019 [10], maybe we could get that behind us? Basic verifiability problems shouldn't be in an RfC. As for Barkeep's concerns, I'm not the only one that thinks they're serious. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let's let Wug look over theGrace VanderWaal page, Talk page and ANI themself, and see what is really happening there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ssilvers. If you'd answer my question about 2018 vs 2019 [10], maybe we could get that behind us? Basic verifiability problems shouldn't be in an RfC. As for Barkeep's concerns, I'm not the only one that thinks they're serious. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ronz: personally, I think the best course of action is not to open another discussion. It's clear that the editors there do not see the concerns you have as a barrier to inclusion, and it's not for a lack of discussion or publicity. Most of that talk page is you arguing, and so far few people have been convinced; I doubt another discussion will change that pattern. Even at the ANI report, many editors expressed concerns that you were the problem which, to be blunt, should be a wake-up call that you've let your investment in the content dispute get the best of you. It happens to everyone, but opening yet another discussion will not make the situation better. I would recommend instead of opening a BLPN discussion, you step back from the dispute for a few days and work on other pages. There are three weeks left in the RfC, and you may find disengaging a better solution to your problem than not. — Wug·a·po·des 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you intervene with Ssilvers' harassment towards me? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ronz: I didn't find anything that I would consider harassment (if I missed something please link me to it), but it's obvious they're still annoyed and want to make that known. Your conduct in this thread is a good example of trying to deescalate, but just like you're taking some time to cool off, other participants will need time to cool off too. I think intervening at this point would probably just escalate the situation again. — Wug·a·po·des 23:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's my thinking too, the need to give Ssilvers time to cool off. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pleased to see that Ronz admits their charge of harrassment was unfounded. Further moves towards a consensual approach would be welcome on his/her part. (Declaration of interest: I am a regular collaborator with Ssilvers but not with Ronz.) Tim riley talk 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Someone else appears to attempt to turn up the heat. Drop it. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pleased to see that Ronz admits their charge of harrassment was unfounded. Further moves towards a consensual approach would be welcome on his/her part. (Declaration of interest: I am a regular collaborator with Ssilvers but not with Ronz.) Tim riley talk 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's my thinking too, the need to give Ssilvers time to cool off. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Essential equipment
You'll be needing this. Narky Blert (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
January 2020
This is your only warning; if you continue to not be an administrator, you may be nominated for adminship without further notice. –xenotalk 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well now, Xeno, how do you expect me to pass an RfA with a 4im warning within the last 6 months? Clearly you didn't think this through. While the mechanics of an administrator draft are interesting, you may remember that I started to fill out the enlistment form last time, so if you or others (cough @Vanamonde93:) are interested in writing a nomination I'd probably find a good week to transclude before the end of the month. — Wug·a·po·des 22:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I've been nudging Wugapodes for a little while now; some four months ago I suggested that his previous sporadic activity may be the only substantive barrier; now that's less of a concern, especially if you have multiple well known nominators (I don't know that I'm well-known, though you have a standing offer of a nomination). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: A nomination from you would mean a lot, so if you can find time I'd appreciate it. If Xeno's bolding is anything to go on, I take it you'd be open to nominating me as well. In case my banter wasn't clear, I would very much welcome a nomination from you as well! Looking at my calendar, the best time to transclude would probably be Jan 31; I could also do Jan 17, but that feels like too quick of a turnaround time. As I linked above, User:Wugapodes/RFA1 has my answers to the standard questions; I'd welcome feedback on those or any general advice/opinions. — Wug·a·po·des 02:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think Vanamonde93 should take first string, so I didn't get too detailed- will likely expand after the nom is placed (special:diff/935845757). –xenotalk 02:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think your answers to the questions are quite solid. I have always been under the impression that the mop would help with your more technical work as well; if so, this is something you could add to your answer to question 1. Otherwise, I'll add a nomination statement in a little while. If you would prefer to transclude on 17 January, I have no objections to that, I could add a statement by tomorrow if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I edited it to get at the technical bits (and some miscellaneous outreach stuff). I had never really thought about how it would help me with tech stuff, so maybe you had a different idea of how it would help. I think it would help in the sense of, if I ever needed to do X, Y, and Z, not having +sysop already would delay things. I don't have any imminent plans to run an admin bot or become an intadmin, but if the need ever arose having already gotten +sysop would remove a barrier to entry. As for 17th vs 31st, I'll need to give it a bit more thought and will come to a decision by tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- No pressure from me with respect to dates. My thoughts were those you have outlined above; needing to do make a specific edit that requires +sysop. But you have a better sense for that than I would. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, whenever you're ready. I'll put a hold on the 4im. –xenotalk 01:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I slept on it and think this weekend would work well. If not tomorrow, then the 18th, but I'll let you both know before I transclude. Thanks for the encouragement! — Wug·a·po·des 21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I've added my nomination. Remember to accept the nomination before you transclude, and also remember to move it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wugapodes for form's sake. Feel free to transclude when you're ready. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- While you're at it, please let me know if I've got anything in your history incorrect. And good luck! Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, fire at will. –xenotalk 01:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93 and Xeno: Transcluding now. Here's to what I hope will be a good 7 days. — Wug·a·po·des 03:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I slept on it and think this weekend would work well. If not tomorrow, then the 18th, but I'll let you both know before I transclude. Thanks for the encouragement! — Wug·a·po·des 21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I edited it to get at the technical bits (and some miscellaneous outreach stuff). I had never really thought about how it would help me with tech stuff, so maybe you had a different idea of how it would help. I think it would help in the sense of, if I ever needed to do X, Y, and Z, not having +sysop already would delay things. I don't have any imminent plans to run an admin bot or become an intadmin, but if the need ever arose having already gotten +sysop would remove a barrier to entry. As for 17th vs 31st, I'll need to give it a bit more thought and will come to a decision by tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think your answers to the questions are quite solid. I have always been under the impression that the mop would help with your more technical work as well; if so, this is something you could add to your answer to question 1. Otherwise, I'll add a nomination statement in a little while. If you would prefer to transclude on 17 January, I have no objections to that, I could add a statement by tomorrow if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think Vanamonde93 should take first string, so I didn't get too detailed- will likely expand after the nom is placed (special:diff/935845757). –xenotalk 02:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: A nomination from you would mean a lot, so if you can find time I'd appreciate it. If Xeno's bolding is anything to go on, I take it you'd be open to nominating me as well. In case my banter wasn't clear, I would very much welcome a nomination from you as well! Looking at my calendar, the best time to transclude would probably be Jan 31; I could also do Jan 17, but that feels like too quick of a turnaround time. As I linked above, User:Wugapodes/RFA1 has my answers to the standard questions; I'd welcome feedback on those or any general advice/opinions. — Wug·a·po·des 02:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I've been nudging Wugapodes for a little while now; some four months ago I suggested that his previous sporadic activity may be the only substantive barrier; now that's less of a concern, especially if you have multiple well known nominators (I don't know that I'm well-known, though you have a standing offer of a nomination). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Be boring is the best advice I've ever read. --valereee (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well I'm glad you found it interesting! It's also an interesting historical piece, you'll even see some comments by Tim Starling who is now lead developer of MediaWiki! I'd encourage you to poke around MeatBall as a lot of our major essays were developed in conversation with theirs. meatball:AssumeGoodFaith is an obvious one, but the spirit of our protection and blocking policies derives from meatball:LimitDamage. It's a cool place. — Wug·a·po·des 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Warning withdrawn, happy adminning! A fine showing, by the way. –xenotalk 12:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Pre-emptive Congrats
I'm off to bed, so here's a pre-emptive congrats on a very well-run RfA. Welcome to the mop corps, I'm sure you'll be great! Nosebagbear (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations from here as well. Enjoy the bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, good luck with the extra tools. Maxim(talk) 05:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you'll do great as an admin! Puddleglum 2.0 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Welcome on board. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations! signed, Rosguill talk 06:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, nicely done. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone! It was about half as stressful as I thought it would be, and it's nice to know so many people are hoping I'll succeed. Looking forward to the new buttons but wow there are so many buttons — Wug·a·po·des 08:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right? And little bits of fun like numbers of page watchers < 30! --valereee (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a ritual, Wugapodes, so damn it, you get a t-shirt! Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2020
- From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium
- News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia
- Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta
- Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019
- News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations
- Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
- From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- Some mobile diffs have problems. A couple of buttons are not shown. Structured data diffs on Commons are confusing. The developers are working on fixing it. [11][12]
- Administrators on wikis that use Structured Discussions can't move discussion pages. This is a bug. The developers are working on fixing it. [13]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
- There is JavaScript code on Special:Undelete for administrators that makes it possible to automatically select multiple checkboxes by holding the "Shift" key and clicking. This code is also loaded by accident on other special pages and on articles. This makes pages slower to load. This will be fixed. If you know of other special pages where this is useful please tell the developers at phab:T232688.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Great to see you adminning at DYK
Wugapodes, congratulations on your first prep to queue promotion. Thanks for helping out—keeping up with a two-a-day pace is taxing the admins who are active at DYK these days.
There is one final step to the process that you didn't get around to (I took care of it for you this time): once you've moved the prep contents to the queue and added the DYKbotdo there, and cleared the prep, the last thing is to update the Prep count so the next prep to be promoted is moved to the head of the line. There's a link for that just below the "Prep areas" header on the Queue page, in the "NOTE:" line, where it gives the current prep as the one you just promoted: click where it says "update count". This will open an edit window where the first digit is the number of the prep you just promoted to queue. You need to increment the number by 1, so 1 goes to 2, 2 to 3, etc.; since there are only six preps, if it's at 6, change it to 1.
We keep the preps and queues synchronized, so if you're promoting Prep 1, it goes to Queue 1, etc. (Every once in a blue moon they become unmoored, but we quickly get them realigned again.) If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Welcome aboard! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I saw it pop up as a backlog and decided to try my hand. I only did one since I wasn't sure if I was doing it right, and I wanted it to be easy to fix if I messed up. Since things generally went smoothly (save the last step with the counter) I'll try and make a bigger dent in the backlog next time. Thanks for letting me know! — Wug·a·po·des 08:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Capricorn
Love the script; just want to propose that two fairly recently-created rcats be added; {{R from remote talk page}} and {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}. Thanks, J947 (c), at 05:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
I followed your advice, and made my message less threatening, i just wanted to say thank you for the message you left on my talk page! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders portrait
Since you've demonstrated some skill with photo editing, do you think you could please remove the red lettering in the background of this image? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders_July_2019.jpg
If you have time, could you also please remove the blue stripe on the left (so that the background is a uniform white)? However the red lettering is more important. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Also, maybe whiten his teeth a little while you're at it? =D Vrrajkum (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Vrrajkum: I've upload a retouch at commons:File:Bernie Sanders July 2019 retouched.jpg; let me know if you have critiques. I left the blue stripe for the time being---staring at all those shades of whit has destroyed my eyes---but will take a crack at it later. I would recommend against whitening his teeth. While removing objects which distract from the composition is generally acceptable since it theoretically could have been part of the composition, changing the subject themselves risks misrepresenting them. — Wug·a·po·des 01:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Belated congratulations
I was offline during your entire RFA and missed the chance to support it. So at least I can offer belated congratulations and good luck. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats!
Sorry that this is a bit late, but congrats on becoming an administrator! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations
- A hearty congratulations! Now that you're an admin, a mop is in order. Thus I am proud to present you your first WikiWiping utensil! I'm afraid that I'm running short on mop photos, so you're going to have to tri-wield. But just think, three times the mop, that's probably like...nine times as much adminning! :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats. Just realised your usenamer is an ananagram of 'Pseudo Wag'. Bet you're genuninely wagging that tail now it's all over. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Wug·a·po·des, for wanting to be an admin! Your passion for this reference work has shown through, so you'll make a good one. PI Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yup - congrats, and thanks for stepping up! Plenty of work to keep your many arms busy... GirthSummit (blether) 19:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yay, it's over! :D --valereee (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations Wugapodes on your successful RFA :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your successful RFADBigXrayᗙ 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- A belated congrats from me! epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
not sure if "Congratulations" are really the right thing to say. if enwiki is anything like hewiki, i'd guess "condolences" and "thank you for the sacrifice" are more appropriate things to say to those volunteering to put their necks under the "admin" yoke. so, please accept my condolences. peace -קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [14]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
content missing in anniversary section on main page
Today on February 1st the Greensboro Sit-Ins started, I never noticed it on the main page, so could you please add it on to the main page (make sure people agree with you, or this could become a big problem) the link for the article is here 96.230.240.122 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Anon, It's 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC) now so probably too late to add to WP:OTD. Looking at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/February_1 it seems that it was listed last year. I'm not familiar with that process, but reading through Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#Steps_for_suggesting_new_listings it seems like you'd need to add it to one of the upcoming dates. Greensboro_sit-ins#Events_at_Woolworth lists a number of dates other than Feb 1 where interesting events happened so while it's too late to add the 60th anniversary of the start of the protests, you could add the 60th anniversary of one of those events. — Wug·a·po·des 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Wugapodes/Capricorn
First, a congratulations (belatedly) on your successful RfA!
The other item I wanted to address with you is a minor fix to your Capricorn user script. Per this discussion, it appears the script is removing the blank line between the redirect target link and rcat templates, and which WP:REDCAT recommends to keep. Would you please adjust the script so that it retains the blank line? I know this is a really minor thing, but it really does make the wikicode more readable.
Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: should be done with this edit — Wug·a·po·des 02:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 February. It will be on all wikis from 6 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing on Jimbo's user page
If you look through the history on Jimbo's user page, you may notice a lot of vandalism on it, and most of it is over the period of January 20-February 4, and the editor's who vandalized it had made a bunch of nonsense edits, so I was wondering if you could semi protect it for about a week or so, to discourage to vandals who are causing this?
on a side note could you please fix the number of edit filter helpers from 22 to 21, because the info is inaccurate, and the page is semi protected, so I can't edit it. the link is here 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi anon, I've looked into both of these. I'm not willing to protect Jimbo's userpage; in general I'm not a fan of page protection when it's avoidable, and especially so for a page which boasts about anyone being able to edit it. More experienced administrators monitor that page, so I trust them to protect the page if and when it is the best option. You may wish to contact one of them. As for the counter on WP:Edit filter, there's not really anything I can do about that. The number is generated by a magic word which automatically updates the page with the current number of edit filter helpers. Depending on the server load, it may be slow to update sometimes. Given that you're editing anonymously, it's also possible that you're viewing an old cached version of the page that doesn't have the new numbers. You may want to try purging the page. — Wug·a·po·des 07:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the discussion. Although I don't agree with your reading of the consensus in the discussion and think it would be overturned in a WP:MR discussion, since the current title is not appropriate under WP:AT and there were very few editors who opposed the title 2019 novel coronavirus (3 who said wait, 1 who proposed a title that was already rejected in the previous discussion's consensus, 1 who did not seem to have a grasp of the conversation and thought a redlinked title was the common name), I don't intend to argue that with you very strenuously here. And as you said, it might be superseded at that point by a different official title. However, I would appreciate it if you would clarify on the talk page that the close is a "no consensus" close in your reading. There doesn't appear to be any procedural issue in the formulation of the request or the discussion that would result in a procedural close, so the outcome should be based either on finding a consensus in the discussion or not finding one. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, in your edit summary you wrote "not moved", which is generally RM-speak for consensus against a move (WP:NOTMOVED) and I can't imagine that's what you intended here. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des 05:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear; I use "not moved" literally to mean that the page stayed where it was not as an indication of consensus, but I appreciate the feedback and will try to be more clear in the future! I've revised the close, let me know if you still disagree. To explain slightly more, while the number of editors saying "wait" was relatively small, their reasoning was sound and couldn't be discounted easily. They offered an argument as to why moving at all was suboptimal, but the various "support" !votes that came after barely engaged with that reasoning. The few times the "wait" opinions were challenged, the editors in favor of waiting refuted the "move and then move again" arguments. For example, the IP editor's response to you summarizes it well:
[I]t doesn't prevent a second rename, but that would be needless churn. Reading the comments here, the sole point of contention is that we want something better than "2019 nCoV" but don't have anything. Many other comments here are either "oppose, wait for a better name" or "support, although I wish there were a better name", so we can consider this rename discussion a mandate to switch to a new official name when it exists and appears to be gaining traction.
After Hemiauchenia's comment, the proportion of support to oppose opinions shifted dramatically, and many opposers cited Hemiauchenia's comments explicitly as leading them to oppose. Meanwhile two editors who originally supported the proposal changed their opinion to "wait" after engaging with that argument. While the early discussion tilted towards "2019 novel coronavirus", after more participants joined and engaged in critical discussion, the opposition managed to convince supporters to change their minds. Supporters convinced no opposers.While the opposers, numerically, were not many, among those editors who considered those arguments, they were considered very convincing and significant. By comparison, supporters abandoned their position, showing that participants didn't find that position as convincing. So I discounted supports in comparison to the "wait" opposes. Despite that, the sheer number of supports indicates that while the oppose votes were convincing, there was no consensus that they were the correct path. Thus no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 05:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)- Again, I don't think it's the best use of our time to argue about the close. However, I was fairly sure the discussion showed consensus and didn't want to bog it down with pestering the opposers, so I didn't even bother to engage with them much. That's on me, I suppose (though it wasn't my proposal to begin with). My take would be this: there is no such thing as "needless churn" on Wikipedia (or conversely, all editing on Wikipedia incorporates some degree of needless churn). That's part of the perennial "no deadline"/"the deadline is now" debate. But coming down on the side of waiting involves a few different stages of speculation: 1) that there is no usefulness to having the page at the intermediate title until a new one is selected (that is, that readers and editors from today until the next time the page is moved won't be caused problems by the current title), 2) that the new title will be propagated on schedule (which is kind of a version of WP:CRYSTAL, I think), 3) that the new title will be adopted soon enough that it will fit WP:NAMECHANGES and not just be a case of WP:OFFICIAL, and 4) that a new discussion to settle on the new title will be able to gain consensus. That is, I took the "wait" opinions as irrelevant to the question as to whether the proposed title was preferable to the current title. Nothing about moving the page precludes a new discussion to establish a new title later; the main problem we have now is that the page was moved several times before we had anything like the level of consensus shown for 2019 novel coronavirus in the current discussion, resulting in a title no one likes. In move discussions, "wait" is often correctly read as an indication of opposition to the move, but in most cases those who write "wait" in a move discussion are asking for evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, not arguing that the common name may change in the future. One of those reflects policy and the other doesn't, I think. At any rate, I appreciate your responsiveness. Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear; I use "not moved" literally to mean that the page stayed where it was not as an indication of consensus, but I appreciate the feedback and will try to be more clear in the future! I've revised the close, let me know if you still disagree. To explain slightly more, while the number of editors saying "wait" was relatively small, their reasoning was sound and couldn't be discounted easily. They offered an argument as to why moving at all was suboptimal, but the various "support" !votes that came after barely engaged with that reasoning. The few times the "wait" opinions were challenged, the editors in favor of waiting refuted the "move and then move again" arguments. For example, the IP editor's response to you summarizes it well:
- Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Wugapodes, sorry I missed all the drama above, but I'm wondering why the relist? I'd have thought consensus is clearly in favour of moving to 2019 novel coronavirus - even those who preferred 2019-CoV1 had that mostly as a second choice, and I don't think this is a case where another week is going to help. Obviously I'm biased though as I voted in the RM! — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: No drama! An interesting discussion actually. I explained above why I didn't see consensus, and Dekimasu gave a reasonable explanation of why they did see consensus. I disagree with it, for example I don't think it's the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL that we should disregard the timetable of an organization responsible for assigning a permanent name. But it's a reasonable enough point that I would prefer participants the chance to weigh those interpretations of policy as they relate to the rename (rather than me or us on my talk page). If Dekimasu is correct about how participants saw it, additional feedback should reflect that. If there's no consensus as I suspect, more feedback will make that more apparent. So I relisted to encourage additional participation; it doesn't need to run the full 7 days if consensus becomes apparent, but I do think additional discussion will help demonstrate how participants weigh the policy considerations brought up as they relate to the move. — Wug·a·po·des 22:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, and thanks for your response. That's fine then, obviously no harm in listing for another week, although I'm fairly sure your assertion that there's no consensus is incorrect, and that if closed as such it would be reversed at move review. The key policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. what the sources are calling the virus, which is more important in determining the article title than what the WP:OFFICIALNAME might be. Thus waiting for
organization responsible for assigning a permanent name
is only relevant if, upon assigning that name, they convince all the sources to follow suit and start using the new name. Which is far from certain. And in any case, if that does happen, we can change our article again. For now though, those voting for the "novel coronavirus" title have the numeric consensus and also the clear weight of policy behind them, so there's really no other way that this RM can end. Cheers, and wishing you a happy weekend — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, and thanks for your response. That's fine then, obviously no harm in listing for another week, although I'm fairly sure your assertion that there's no consensus is incorrect, and that if closed as such it would be reversed at move review. The key policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. what the sources are calling the virus, which is more important in determining the article title than what the WP:OFFICIALNAME might be. Thus waiting for
- @Amakuru: No drama! An interesting discussion actually. I explained above why I didn't see consensus, and Dekimasu gave a reasonable explanation of why they did see consensus. I disagree with it, for example I don't think it's the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL that we should disregard the timetable of an organization responsible for assigning a permanent name. But it's a reasonable enough point that I would prefer participants the chance to weigh those interpretations of policy as they relate to the rename (rather than me or us on my talk page). If Dekimasu is correct about how participants saw it, additional feedback should reflect that. If there's no consensus as I suspect, more feedback will make that more apparent. So I relisted to encourage additional participation; it doesn't need to run the full 7 days if consensus becomes apparent, but I do think additional discussion will help demonstrate how participants weigh the policy considerations brought up as they relate to the move. — Wug·a·po·des 22:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It should fix the failed uploads problem. [15]
Problems
- There was a problem with the new MediaWiki version last week. It deleted some messages by accident. The new version was late because it was stopped to fix things. [16]
Changes later this week
- The MediaWiki action API is used by various tools like bots and gadgets. Some error codes will change. Some parameter values that do not follow the standard will no longer work. [17]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 February. It will be on all wikis from 13 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello Wugapodes,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Jordan Hall
I saw your comment at RFA and got curious about Jordan Hall. When it comes back, here are some weak to middling sources that I dug up:
With the addition of some prison experiment sources to the above, I'd say the bare minimum is there to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is decent coverage, although not entirely independent. Looks like the hall was named after Stanford's first president, David Starr Jordan.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: thanks for this! SandyGeorgia also found a couple sources that were interesting. If I get around to writing the article again, these will all be very helpful. A fun fact about Jordan is that he was one of only two people to ever receive an honorary degree from his alma mater, Cornell University; the other being Cornell's co-founder A.D. White. — Wug·a·po·des 00:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is decent coverage, although not entirely independent. Looks like the hall was named after Stanford's first president, David Starr Jordan.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Pages on Wikidata and Commons now load faster. You can read more about page load performance. [18][19]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources request
I was wondering if you would be willing to send me the following articles from CEEOL:
- Putík, Daniel (2013). "Slovenští Židé v ghettu Terezín (1944 – 1945)". Historický časopis (in Slovak) (02): 289–311. ISSN 0018-2575.
- "Lublin, Lipowa 7. Obóz dla Żydów-polskich jeńców wojennych (1940-1943)". Kwartalnik Historii Żydów (in Polish). 228 (04): 490–514. 2008. ISSN 1899-3044.
- Podgórski, Artur (2010). "Arbeitslager in Poniatowa 1941-1943". Kwartalnik Historii Żydów (in German). 236 (04): 425–448. ISSN 1899-3044.
- For List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, Draft:Lipowa 7, and Operation Harvest Festival. Many thanks! buidhe 15:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Mexican Federalist War
How did you arrive at a "delete" conclusion for the discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Mexican Federalist War) on the redirect Mexican Federalist War (diff) -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @PBS: Of the six participants in the discussion over three weeks, only one advocated keeping the redirect. Two participants, BDD and Rosguill, specifically rejected the keep argument. Clear consensus to delete. — Wug·a·po·des 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Thanks! -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 February. It will be on all wikis from 27 February (calendar).
Future changes
- There will be a reply button after each post on a talk page if you want one. This will soon be a beta feature on the Arabic, French, Dutch and Hungarian Wikipedias. You will have to turn it on if you want to use it. It will come to more wikis later. You can test the reply button. It was briefly shown earlier than planned by mistake on the four first wikis last week.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wiki4YearofSound2020
Really good stuff. I am enjoying the information on many languages. Thanks for participating! TMorata (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)