User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 38
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Juliancolton. 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
- Muboshgu
- Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
- None
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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)
Reg Rahul_Verma_(social_activist)
Hi, Is it possible to restore https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rahul_Verma_(social_activist)
New York times recently did a front page story on him, in this article it is clearly visible that he remain media shy for so many years.
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/12/29/nytfrontpage/INYT_frontpage_global.20171229.pdf
One Man’s Stand Against Junk Food as Diabetes Climbs Across India ( online addition)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/health/india-diabetes-junk-food.html
Here is video featured about his work by CNBC TV 18
Arjunuday, The Force Behind Uday Foundation
Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Article Chris Andrews (wrestler) deletion
Hi Juliancolton, I was recently looking to create Chris Andrews (wrestler), and I understand that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted on PROD by yourself, due to not meeting WP:GNG. Is there a way I can see the previous version of the article, and see if there is a starting of an article, as I believe there are new sources made for him, see below:
Ringside World Basingstoke Gazette Wrestling Fever (German) Octagon Theatre (Yeovil) Kayfabe today Devon Live Magazine Total Wrestling Magazine
Additional info sources: British Wrestling revival Interview Wrestling Blog with information Cagematch Profile
If I could see the original, I would be able to assess if an article is feasable.
Thank you for your time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Lee Vilenski, I've restored the article per the contested PROD protocol (I know you didn't technically context the deletion, but this seems easier all-around). Best of luck in your efforts to improve the article, and feel free to contact me with any questions/issues. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks, the article really was in a state! I'll leave an "under creation" tag on the article and I'll update it soon. Have a great day Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
- None
- Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Is it possible to restore https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rahul_Verma_(social_activist) New York times recently did a front page story on him, in this article it is clearly visible that he remain media shy for so many years. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/12/29/nytfrontpage/INYT_frontpage_global.20171229.pdf
One Man’s Stand Against Junk Food as Diabetes Climbs Across India ( online addition) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/health/india-diabetes-junk-food.html Same article was featured as a two page article in printed addition of Gulf times http://gulfnews.com/culture/people/a-father-sues-to-curb-junk-food-as-diabetes-spreads-1.2150937 Here is video featured about his work by CNBC TV 18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYVav8_r2o HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Tropical Depression Ten (2005) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Tropical Depression Ten (2005) has been scheduled as today's featured article for 10 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 10, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, not for depression but Depression ;) ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
Hi, I have created Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 [1]). Please have a look. Sorry if I troubled you too much Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Shibanihk, thank you for the notification. It looks like the new article is off to a good start. I've added the page to my watchlist and will be happy to offer any guidance as needed. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- That means a lot. Again thank a ton. Regards Shibanihk (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
GOCE February 2018 news
Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News
Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Precious five years!
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
- Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.
- 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.
WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.
Our top scorers in round 1 were:
- Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
- FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
- Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
- Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 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) 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Mesoscale convective vortex into Mesovortices
Please go to Talk:Mesovortices if you have an opinion on the subject. Pierre cb (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
- updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
ACTRIAL:
- ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
- Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
- While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
- The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
- 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
- Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:New York Roads for deletion
A proposal has been made to delete Portal:New York Roads, which you have made significant contributions to, as well as all other portals on English Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion if you'd like, which is located at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 11:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Merged Minor characters of Xanth into List of Xanth characters
Dear Juliancolton:
I have just completed the merging of Minor characters of Xanth into List of Xanth characters. Your name was on the top of the Talk Page of the former article as per the discussion about such a merge/deletion. It seems this merge had been sitting on the shelf since 2009.
Since it was your decision per the discussion to merge said articles, I wanted to let you know that this is the very first article merger I have performed, and I was wondering if I could bother you to check things over to make sure I did it right.
I had initially intended to use a {{Merge}} request, but then I realized how bold and easy it should be to perform. I've made note on the two Talk pages, as suggested by the Wikipedia:Merging#Full-content paste merger page/section. How did I do for my first time? There is another pair of articles I've previously suggested merging, but I haven't completed because I was unsure about the process. I want to make sure I did everything right here before attempting a Selective Paste Merger there.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla
Hello, Can you please takeout few minutes to comment on this. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shehzad_Poonawalla Regards Sonia89f (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:
- Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
- Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
- Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
- SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
- Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
- Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
- Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs
So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).
- None
- Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060
- The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
- AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new
equals_to_any
function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash. - When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
- The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
- AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.
- Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Hurricane Carmen scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Hurricane Carmen has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 3, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and all who helped, for the "relatively destructive 1970s tropical cyclone whose most significant effect was the destruction of sugar crops in the United States. Despite sparing two major population centers and causing less damage than initially feared, the hurricane's severity justified the retirement of its name the following year"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webkul
Hi Julian, I sent you links for the article that has been deleted i.e Webkul. Please check and let me know if those link can work as reliable sources and the page can be recovered.
Saurav.webkul (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webkul
Hello,
As the Webkul article has been deleted, and as per reason there is no reliable resource to prove that. Now I have with me reliable sources to satisfy the company information. Can you restore that article so I can make suggested changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurav.webkul (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Saurav.webkul,
Even if you can verify the information about the company, that still doesn't necessarily mean the business is notable. To establish notability for Wikipedia standards, you need many independent, reliable sources that discuss the company in great detail. Is this the case? If so, could you please provide a sample of the sources you've found? Thank you, –
Juliancolton | Talk 14:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am sending you the link to reliable sources, please find below
- Magento Technology Partner: https://marketplace.magento.com/partner/webkul
- 2018 Magento Technology Partners Award: https://magento.com/blog/events/2018-partner-award-winners-magento-technology-partners
- CrunchBase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/webkul
- Webkul Software Pvt Ltd.: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/webkul-software-private-limited/articleshow/55326922.cms
- BWdisrupt: http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/FarEye-Ranks-Among-One-of-India-s-50-Fastest-Growing-Tech-Companies/21-11-2016-108577/
- National Skills Registry: https://nationalskillsregistry.com/companies-listing.htm
- DataQuest: http://www.dqindia.com/the-inspiring-story-of-how-startup-webkul-created-a-40000-customer-base-using-open-source/
- PlanBmatters: http://planbmatters.com/one-simple-idea-led-to-a-1mn-company
- Mixergy: http://mixergy.com/interviews/vipin-sahu-webkul-interview
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2015: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-tech-fast-50-2015-noexp.pdf
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2016: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-techfast50-2016-winners-noexp.pdf
- Deloitte Tech Fast 50 APAC: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tech-fast-500-apac-ranking-report-2016.pdf
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2017: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-tech-fast-50-winners-report-17-noexp.pdf
- Deccan Hearald: https://www.deccanherald.com/content/581354/8-delhi-ncr-cos-find.html
- SalesForce Partner: https://appexchange.salesforce.com/appxSearchKeywordResults?keywords=webkul
- Odoo Partners: https://www.odoo.com/partners/webkul-software-pvt-ltd-13619
- Iyzico Partner: https://www.iyzico.com/hazir-altyapi
- Opencart Partner: https://www.opencart.com/index.php?route=support/partner/info&partner_id=106785&filter_country_id=99&filter_type_id=1&page=2
- Asian Entrepreneur: http://www.asianentrepreneur.org/vipin-sahu-co-founder-of-webkul-2/
- Digifire: https://www.digifire.in/2016/02/25/interview-with-vinay-yadav-co-founder-at-webkul/
Saurav.webkul (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webkul
Hello,
I am sending you the link to reliable sources for Webkul, please find below
- Magento Technology Partner: https://marketplace.magento.com/partner/webkul
- 2018 Magento Technology Partners Award: https://magento.com/blog/events/2018-partner-award-winners-magento-technology-partners
- CrunchBase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/webkul
- Webkul Software Pvt Ltd.: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/webkul-software-private-limited/articleshow/55326922.cms
- BWdisrupt: http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/FarEye-Ranks-Among-One-of-India-s-50-Fastest-Growing-Tech-Companies/21-11-2016-108577/
- National Skills Registry: https://nationalskillsregistry.com/companies-listing.htm
- DataQuest: http://www.dqindia.com/the-inspiring-story-of-how-startup-webkul-created-a-40000-customer-base-using-open-source/
- PlanBmatters: http://planbmatters.com/one-simple-idea-led-to-a-1mn-company
- Mixergy: http://mixergy.com/interviews/vipin-sahu-webkul-interview
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2015: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-tech-fast-50-2015-noexp.pdf
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2016: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-techfast50-2016-winners-noexp.pdf
- Deloitte Tech Fast 50 APAC: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tech-fast-500-apac-ranking-report-2016.pdf
- Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2017: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/in-tmt-tech-fast-50-winners-report-17-noexp.pdf
- Deccan Hearald: https://www.deccanherald.com/content/581354/8-delhi-ncr-cos-find.html
- SalesForce Partner: https://appexchange.salesforce.com/appxSearchKeywordResults?keywords=webkul
- Odoo Partners: https://www.odoo.com/partners/webkul-software-pvt-ltd-13619
- Iyzico Partner: https://www.iyzico.com/hazir-altyapi
- Opencart Partner: https://www.opencart.com/index.php?route=support/partner/info&partner_id=106785&filter_country_id=99&filter_type_id=1&page=2
- Asian Entrepreneur: http://www.asianentrepreneur.org/vipin-sahu-co-founder-of-webkul-2/
- Digifire: https://www.digifire.in/2016/02/25/interview-with-vinay-yadav-co-founder-at-webkul/
Saurav.webkul (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Request for removing semi on Jodie Sweetin
Hello! I was browsing around and found that Jodi Sweetin has been indef semi'd since 2009. Perhaps it's time to give it a shot at unprotection? That said, I have no experience with the article other than coming across it today and recognize the BLP concerns. Reaching out only based on the long period of protection and per last bullet point on the rough guide. Thanks for your time.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oops. Helps if I get the right links.--Policy Reformer(c) 04:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Based on your recent contribs, it seems like you might be a bit less active these days. I'm going to post this over at RPP. If you have any thoughts, I welcome them. Thanks for your time.--Policy Reformer(c) 23:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
- None
- Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington
- Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
- Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.
- IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
- There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
- It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
- A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
- In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
June 2018 GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News
Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hurricane Daniel (2006) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Hurricane Daniel (2006) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 16, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 16, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
- Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate the time you spent looking things over at the North Cascades National Park FAC. [2] It definitely helped me make the article much better.--MONGO 21:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
GA nomination for Diddle Diddle Dumpling (Inside No. 9)
Hi! I saw your name on the list of GA mentors, and I would be very grateful if you were willing to have a check over my first GA review at Talk:Diddle Diddle Dumpling (Inside No. 9)/GA1 before I close the review. My opinion is that the nomination needs to be put on hold. Many thanks, --Jonie148 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
- Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
- SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington
Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
- Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
- Gogo Dodo
- Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD
- An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.
- Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
- Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
- IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
- Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Thank you
Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
- After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
- Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
- The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
wikipedia in Khmer
The page Khmer Wikipedia has been deleted and redirected to another one. I totally disagree with that. By deleting this page you erase all information that can be useful about the history and evolution of this wiki. We must help Khmer wikipedia; many people there don't speak English. --Io Herodotus (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Io Herodotus, it's been fully nine years since that happened. I'm sure enough time has passed to give it another try, if there is, in fact, "information that can be useful about the history and evolution of this wiki". Having said that, the content you reinstated was little more than a dictionary definition and did not represent any improvement over the redirected version. Also note that, no, we don't have to help anyone – see Wikipedia:Advocacy. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. Some wikis have less articles and have a page. Please tell me the criteria I have to fulfill to have this page about Khmer Wikipedia. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
August GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Peer review newsletter #1
Introduction
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
- THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
- Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
Updates
Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
Update #3: advertising
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
- Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
- Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
- Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
- Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
- None
- Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
- Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Interface administrator changes
- Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux
- Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
- Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
- Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says
Deprecated. Use ... instead
. An example isarticle_text
which is nowpage_title
. - Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is
page_age
.
- The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Hurricane Ivan retirement
If you put it in parentheses then it wouldn't take away from the topic. It's just some small additional information. So it is relevant to the topic. The more information the better. I'm trying to enjoy Wikipedia just as you do.Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Flasty Jam 2: Wikipedia operates by consensus, and judging by the number of editors with whom you've shared the above message today, there seems to be a strong consensus against the sort of information you've been adding. That it is "just some additional information" is irrelevant – one could write volumes about Hurricane Ivan and tangentially related topics, but we seek to create a summary of the most relevant and noteworthy aspects. "Ivan" is just an arbitrary name that was assigned to the storm, having no bearing on its impacts; that the name replacing it six years later was also retired is just happenstance, and completely irrelevant to the hurricane in September 2004. Putting it inside parenthesis doesn't change anything. We all appreciate your enthusiasm and appreciation for Wikipedia, but unfortunately your understanding that "the more information the better" is contrary to our core content policies. There are many areas of the Tropical cyclones WikiProject that need attention from dedicated contributors, so if you'd like to get more involved by adding sources to unverified information, correcting errors, or expanding coverage of storms that really do need additional content, please let me know, and I'll point you in the right direction. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let me ask you. If it's trivial then why don't we make a trivial section for facts like these instead of someone looking all day for it. It will be quick little points about the information. Then that way it can be relevant regardless. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Flasty Jam 2: Consensus has long been established by WP:WPTC to not have trivia(l) sections in hurricane articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let me ask you. If it's trivial then why don't we make a trivial section for facts like these instead of someone looking all day for it. It will be quick little points about the information. Then that way it can be relevant regardless. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael McCormack
I'm offended that you characterize my close at Talk:Michael McCormack (Australian politician) as a WP:SUPERVOTE. My interpretation of PTOPIC had nothing to do with it. That was the interpretation of all participants, including those opposed. As I noted in my close, nobody disagreed that this person was the PTOPIC. They decided it shouldn't matter for reasons not in guidelines, so they were weighted accordingly. That's exactly what RM closers are supposed to do. --В²C ☎ 22:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle: I suspected that you'd be displeased, and for that I'm sorry. But I think you already knew that there was no consensus for renaming, at least not by any halfway-accepted definition of "consensus." There are other considerations to disambiguation beyond simply that of whether the subject represents the primary topic, and for a vast majority of editors – tenured editors in good-standing, not merely a sock farm or a band of uninitiated newcomers – PTOPIC did not prescribe the best title for ease of navigation. More to the point, your close was not impartial, and clearly fell afoul of WP:RMNAC (and conventional wisdom concerning non-admin closures in general), which says that contentious debates should not be closed by non-admins. This is especially true when the result goes so strongly against consensus. My decade of closing debates, discussions, proposals, and requests has taught me that any actionable result (like move, delete, etc.) is usually not justified if significantly more than half of participants voted against it. There are sometimes extraordinary circumstances where most people are objectively wrong according to non-negotiable policies like BLP, but these are very rare, and were not present at the McCormack debate. Please note that I'm not familiar with any background surrounding your RM-related activities, which have apparently prompted an AE request. I simply saw the article listed at RMT and took action to correct one instance of a poor close. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi JC. Just noting my pleasure on seeing you on my watchlist again :) Just letting you know that Black Kite filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle in part based on this and you are mentioned indirectly. Edit: oh, I just saw you were aware. Sorry about the extra notification. Just was making it as a courtesy in case you weren’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks JC. I thought I was okay closing that RM as an experienced editor. WP:RMNAC explicitly says, "Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates; doing so is discouraged for NACs in general, not just at RM. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure." I was cognizant of the advise to be cautious, which is why I left the long explanation. I could understand the close being taken to Move review. I was startled by the reversal. I think my explanation for the close speaks for itself, and is supported by the Closing instructions as well as WP:CONSENSUS#Determining consensus ("Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."). --В²C ☎ 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note TonyBallioni. It's great to see a familiar name stopping by! I'll keep an eye on the AE request and stand ready to offer my input if necessary. Born2cycle, I agree wholeheartedly with the highlighted and would never undo an NAC without believing it to be fundamentally flawed. My thoughts on MRV are similar to those on a relist: consensus was relatively clear in opposition to renaming, and there were no indications that opinions were shifting or still being formed... the most recent comment was posted a full week prior to your close. I also remain unconvinced that any of the comments were so patently illogical or starkly at odds with policy that it was necessary to disregarding almost all of them. WP:PTOPIC leaves open the possibility for there to be no primary topic. Combine that with the fact that it's far from the sole consideration, and it becomes clear to me that objections to the move shouldn't have to directly address that point to be valid. I'll happily yield to any uninvolved admin or established editor who feels it would be beneficial to reopen the discussion, either by relisting or filing an MRV, but for my part, I stand by my course of action. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks JC. I thought I was okay closing that RM as an experienced editor. WP:RMNAC explicitly says, "Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates; doing so is discouraged for NACs in general, not just at RM. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved. All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure." I was cognizant of the advise to be cautious, which is why I left the long explanation. I could understand the close being taken to Move review. I was startled by the reversal. I think my explanation for the close speaks for itself, and is supported by the Closing instructions as well as WP:CONSENSUS#Determining consensus ("Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."). --В²C ☎ 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi JC. Just noting my pleasure on seeing you on my watchlist again :) Just letting you know that Black Kite filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle in part based on this and you are mentioned indirectly. Edit: oh, I just saw you were aware. Sorry about the extra notification. Just was making it as a courtesy in case you weren’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for closing my first nomination for deletion
(Here)
Just a quick note of appreciation to see everything go smoothly.
--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Elfabet: And thank you for nominating such a clear-cut case that required no mental gymnastics on my part. It was a rare treat. :) I'm glad that your experience at AfD has been positive so far, and hope you continue to offer your services! – Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
How about Murad Ahmad and Wan Mohamad Nazarie Wan Mahmood? Both articles were created by User:Wanfahmi57. Panji Keramat (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- They would need their own AfDs since they were not formally listed for debate, or even discussed beyond your comment. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hurricane Florence (2006) Page
Part of the problem with the persistent vandalism of the 2006 Florence page is probably that while the 2018 page has a link to the disambiguous page, the 2006 doesn't--so when you Google it, the 2006 page comes up as the primary search result, and there is no way to find the page you're looking for (obviously 2018). Chelsea99 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Chelsea99: Possibly. I added a hatnote to redirect such readers. Regards SoWhy 15:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Thanks for that! And good catch, Chelsea99. I will say that new/unregistered users changing dates in historical weather articles when a current storm is in the news has been a recurring problem for many years, even when the hatnote is in place, but I'd be happy to try unprotecting Florence 2006 (or going to PC?) if you guys think it's worth a try. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, no way is the 2018 hurricane WP:PTOPIC! That is WP:RECENTISM. If you're a hurricane expert, you might want to keep an eye on/revert unjustified page moves. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: 2018's Florence is far and away the primary topic. I'm not sure how you could arrive at any other conclusion, except perhaps via a fundamental misunderstanding of what recentism is. WP:RECENTISM dissuades us from assigning undue weight to current events. In this case, the emphasis on the recent storm is justified, as a quick review of Hurricane Florence (disambiguation) and the by-storm effects will reveal. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, no way is the 2018 hurricane WP:PTOPIC! That is WP:RECENTISM. If you're a hurricane expert, you might want to keep an eye on/revert unjustified page moves. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Thanks for that! And good catch, Chelsea99. I will say that new/unregistered users changing dates in historical weather articles when a current storm is in the news has been a recurring problem for many years, even when the hatnote is in place, but I'd be happy to try unprotecting Florence 2006 (or going to PC?) if you guys think it's worth a try. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The opening comment at Talk:Typhoon_Mangkhut#Is_this_chart_unnecessary? appears to simply be a spam comment being used as a piggyback to the discussion on Florence's talkpage. I removed a similar comment on another page that had no replies. What should be done about something like this as it does have replies? FigfiresSend me a message! 02:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Figfires: I think you're being overly reactive. Phoenix7777 created charts for a few storms and referred back to the ongoing, centralized discussion concerning the usefulness of the charts in general. The result of the discussion could have sweeping effects if enough editors think such images should be standard in storm articles, so cross-posting to a few high-visibility talk pages is actually a good idea. Maybe they could have worded it differently – eg. "I made this chart for Mangkhut but would like input before adding it to the article, please join the discussion [[Talk:Hurricane Florence|here]] to offer your thoughts" – but I'd submit that your badgering of the user is worse than any of their actions. I might even ask that you reinstate their Jebi thread, since it pertains directly to improving the article in question. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh okay... Sorry, just was rather unclear as to the purpose of those links. Issue seems to be one editor removing it for each one. Some were pushed back quite a ways in the history. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Unfortunately, many people are just reflexively opposed to anything and everything that's unfamiliar... call it human nature. There seems to be a WP:OWN issue at hand. That's why I'm glad it's at least being discussed at a time when new edit wars seem to fire up at the drop of a hat. Thanks for taking a fresh look. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh okay... Sorry, just was rather unclear as to the purpose of those links. Issue seems to be one editor removing it for each one. Some were pushed back quite a ways in the history. FigfiresSend me a message! 03:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
rules and outreach
never ever are cleverly co-ordinated - there is a real disconnect - Queensland Museum had been editing for a whole year untouched - it is almost as if better to avoid process, in the face of trying to reach editors from institutions - before they get blocked. JarrahTree 05:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
AFD result
Hi Julian, you recently closed the AFD on Pizza Haven as Keep. The Keep !voters were very early in the process but none of them provided any rationale using policy/guidelines. Further, none provided any rebuttal to by Delete !vote and pointing out the salient parts of NCORP - especially the part in ORGIND in relation to "Intellectually Independent" content. There was also a Merge !vote and some comments with sources, which I also responded to. Based on this, can you provide a rationale as to why you believe the consensus was Keep? There's little point in reading references and providing policy/guideline-based arguments if it really comes down to counting !votes at the end of the day (not saying that was your reasoning, but I cannot see another). HighKing++ 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hey HighKing, thanks for stopping by. It's nice to "see" you once again. I'm pressed for time presently but I'll report back by the end of the day to explain my thinking wrt that AfD. I just didn't want you to fear I was ignoring your message in the meantime. Chat soon, – Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- So you did put more effort into fleshing out your arguments than many of the other participants, and your assessment of the available coverage was perfectly valid. The problem is that when non-delete votes outnumber "deletes" many-fold (4 to 1, in this case), it's exceptionally difficult to claim that consensus endorsed deletion, unless the arguments for keeping are essentially gibberish or heavily influenced by canvassing or other maliciousness. (I do traditionally weigh the nomination as a "delete" vote, but that particular nom focused on sources presently in the article instead of coverage that might be available elsewhere – I see no evidence that WP:BEFORE was satisfied.) While many of the "keeps" in this case did stand on flimsy ground, they were not totally bereft of all logic to the point where WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS gave me a mandate to discard them entirely. Consider it no consensus; I can even change the wording of the close to that, if you'd like. I often use the two outcomes interchangeably. Unfortunately, head-counting does play into the final call to some extent, and it always has. When you do your due diligence and advance thoroughly fleshed out arguments, you're helping other participants form educated opinions. In theory this should facilitate the formation of a clear consensus, though sometimes, in practice, it doesn't. This doesn't mean that your efforts are being wasted, and I hope you don't feel that way. I know this probably doesn't allay your concerns... I'm quite confident though that it would be nearly impossible to find an admin who would have deleted the article based on the debate in question. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Julian, thank you for the considered and detailed response. I don't agree with how you came to your conclusion (hey surprise! :-) - as I pointed out and you've acknowledged, the Keep !votes stood on flimsy ground indeed - and yet it was the volume of Keep !votes that held sway. I am disheartened to be honest. AfD is not supposed to be about the number of !votes but on the strength of argument and the application of policies/guidelines. And, if what you say it true, that you are confident that no other admin would have delted the article based on the debate in question, we really should stop fooling ourselves and change the AfD guidelines. I've participated in a number of AfDs where I have disagreed with the closing admin although usually I can sorta see where, if they were to make a decision, it might look like a "supervote". At the very least I believe this should be closed as a "No Consensus". Also, it might sound like I think you've done something wrong - I'm not. I believe you are correct that no other admin would have deleted based on the debate in question - but I also believe that is the problem. Correctly done, any an every admin weighing the debate in question *should* have seen that 1) None of the references meet ORGIND 2) None of the Keep !voters put forward any argument based on policy/guideline 3) Not. Count. !votes! Anyway, again, thank you for allowing me to let off a little steam. We're not perfect here but at least we're all still trying (some more trying than others, eh :-) HighKing++ 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing: Thank you for being gracious about your disagreement and disappointment. I completely understand where you're coming from, and very much share your sentiment that the deletion guidelines are overly idealistic when weighed against reality. There's no way a delete result would have been upheld at the inevitably DRV, and yet this leaves room for lots of unsavory implications... among them being the potential for substantial, policy-based arguments to be eclipsed by speculation and hunches. Now, I don't have a personal opinion on whether the Pizza Haven article should be deleted, otherwise I would have abstained from closing or participated in a different capacity. But I can say that sometimes, deletion discussions (and consensus-forming exercises in general) do, not infrequently, get it wrong. In any case, I've revised the result to the more precise "no consensus." I'll endeavor to be more careful about distinguishing between "keep" and "no consensus," even if the effective results are the same. NC leaves the door open to a quicker renomination, so it does make a difference.
At the risk of digressing, one of the biggest problems is that Wikipedia's definition of "consensus" is wonky and often self-contradictory. The very second sentence of WP:Consensus, an official policy, says consensus is not a vote, yet we spent months and thousands of posts in 2015 tweaking the required support percentage to pass RfA, whose own instructions remind us multiple times that it's Not A Vote.™ Consensus here is just a poorly developed concept, which is surprising given how long the project's been around, and how long we've paraded "consensus" as the great equalizer. WP:XFD says the closer's job is "consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives," which is about as noncommittal and weaselly as it gets. (Would it injure my credibility if I told you that I can't even parse "eventual synthesis of different perspectives"?) WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is quite a bit more fleshed-out but hardly more useful. It variously submits that we have the authority to discount comments made in bad-faith; that merely having flawed logic in the eye of the closer is enough to get a !vote tossed; and the happy middle-ground that we should just ensure everyone minds the core content policies. I like to think that I've kept my finger on the pulse of AfD culture over the years. To the best of my knowledge, none of my ~8,500 AfD closes have been overturned at DRV, meaning it is possible to generally suss out how far the closer can, and should, go in weighing comments – or eventually synthesizing different perspectives, if you like – but it would certainly be nice to have it documented somewhere. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks again Julian and it is very good of you to further explain the realities of the AfD process. HighKing++ 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing: Thank you for being gracious about your disagreement and disappointment. I completely understand where you're coming from, and very much share your sentiment that the deletion guidelines are overly idealistic when weighed against reality. There's no way a delete result would have been upheld at the inevitably DRV, and yet this leaves room for lots of unsavory implications... among them being the potential for substantial, policy-based arguments to be eclipsed by speculation and hunches. Now, I don't have a personal opinion on whether the Pizza Haven article should be deleted, otherwise I would have abstained from closing or participated in a different capacity. But I can say that sometimes, deletion discussions (and consensus-forming exercises in general) do, not infrequently, get it wrong. In any case, I've revised the result to the more precise "no consensus." I'll endeavor to be more careful about distinguishing between "keep" and "no consensus," even if the effective results are the same. NC leaves the door open to a quicker renomination, so it does make a difference.
- Hey Julian, thank you for the considered and detailed response. I don't agree with how you came to your conclusion (hey surprise! :-) - as I pointed out and you've acknowledged, the Keep !votes stood on flimsy ground indeed - and yet it was the volume of Keep !votes that held sway. I am disheartened to be honest. AfD is not supposed to be about the number of !votes but on the strength of argument and the application of policies/guidelines. And, if what you say it true, that you are confident that no other admin would have delted the article based on the debate in question, we really should stop fooling ourselves and change the AfD guidelines. I've participated in a number of AfDs where I have disagreed with the closing admin although usually I can sorta see where, if they were to make a decision, it might look like a "supervote". At the very least I believe this should be closed as a "No Consensus". Also, it might sound like I think you've done something wrong - I'm not. I believe you are correct that no other admin would have deleted based on the debate in question - but I also believe that is the problem. Correctly done, any an every admin weighing the debate in question *should* have seen that 1) None of the references meet ORGIND 2) None of the Keep !voters put forward any argument based on policy/guideline 3) Not. Count. !votes! Anyway, again, thank you for allowing me to let off a little steam. We're not perfect here but at least we're all still trying (some more trying than others, eh :-) HighKing++ 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- So you did put more effort into fleshing out your arguments than many of the other participants, and your assessment of the available coverage was perfectly valid. The problem is that when non-delete votes outnumber "deletes" many-fold (4 to 1, in this case), it's exceptionally difficult to claim that consensus endorsed deletion, unless the arguments for keeping are essentially gibberish or heavily influenced by canvassing or other maliciousness. (I do traditionally weigh the nomination as a "delete" vote, but that particular nom focused on sources presently in the article instead of coverage that might be available elsewhere – I see no evidence that WP:BEFORE was satisfied.) While many of the "keeps" in this case did stand on flimsy ground, they were not totally bereft of all logic to the point where WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS gave me a mandate to discard them entirely. Consider it no consensus; I can even change the wording of the close to that, if you'd like. I often use the two outcomes interchangeably. Unfortunately, head-counting does play into the final call to some extent, and it always has. When you do your due diligence and advance thoroughly fleshed out arguments, you're helping other participants form educated opinions. In theory this should facilitate the formation of a clear consensus, though sometimes, in practice, it doesn't. This doesn't mean that your efforts are being wasted, and I hope you don't feel that way. I know this probably doesn't allay your concerns... I'm quite confident though that it would be nearly impossible to find an admin who would have deleted the article based on the debate in question. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't have a problem per se with this being recorded as a no consensus result, but I have a very big problem with the attempt of this user at trying to have their vote treated as, essentially, a supervote. This AfD concerned a very major, multinational chain with operations going back well beyond regularly-available internet sourcing, and an article which everyone agreed needed substantial work. An assessment of the sources in the article, therefore, doesn't actually contribute very much to the discussion in any sense.
Now, in this sort of situation, people might take it upon themselves to try to fix the article then and there - but it very much depends on the behaviour of participants in the AfD. If I feel like someone is genuinely interested in assessing sourcing, I might make the effort even if it means going really out of my way; if I feel like someone has made up their mind and doesn't actually care about the sourcing provided, I'm reasonably going to assume that doing so would be a waste of my time.
The company guidelines around intellectual independence of sources are vague and necessarily require editors being reasonable about how they interpret them. The list of examples of acceptable sources was specifically included as a counterweight to the potential for absurdly wide interpretation: if one takes the stance that any source that at some stage engages with a company source is not intellectually independent, you can quite literally take out any useful, reliable source on a company - even up to including, for example, Amazon and Google. So, these discussions come down to application: and if someone has decided that, because they think an article should be deleted (even if they don't know very much about the subject), they're going to apply that approach to all sources try to effect that deletion, they're just not particularly worth engaging with. And I absolutely resent the implication that that contribution is either more helpful or more grounded in policy than any of the others. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Drover's Wife: Thanks for stopping by and offering your thoughts. I'd only request that, at least on my talk page – the one place where I have a say in what goes! – you'd ping HighKing or any other user being discussed so they have a chance to respond if desired. You and I are agreed that a delete result would only have been possible by way of a supervote, as I've noted in my earlier comments. I disagree on the substance of your remarks, however; you say, "if I feel like someone has made up their mind and doesn't actually care about the sourcing provided, I'm reasonably going to assume that doing so would be a waste of my time," but you first posted well before the first "delete" vote was lodged, and still did not comment on sourcing. When a nearly unsourced article is concerned, simply asserting that the topic is notable without attempting to prove it is not a strong argument, and will naturally be weighed less heavily than detailed, one-by-one scrutiny of sources. See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, which, while only an essay, I've always found to be spot-on. That the company was "major" and "national" is a valid consideration, but not one that sways discussions in the absence of significant coverage. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, anyone can pooh-pooh the sources on an obviously bad article and pretend that it says anything about the notability of the subject, but it's not actually a helpful contribution. This was one of the dominant pizza chains in multiple countries, mostly prior to the period that is well documented online in those countries. It's like if Dominos was a poor article and were nominated for deletion - pointing out that a poor article would obviously not be representative of the actual sources is a statement of the obvious.
- And precisely because most of the sources are not likely to be online (the premier Australian newspaper search gets very spotty beyond about four years before they became defunct), it needs to be recognised that fleshing the article out properly is going to be far, far more work than dismissively skimming a couple of links. And I'm happy to do that work - if I feel like someone is going to honestly engage with that. I was watching the discussion play out, and I specifically opted against that after forming the reasoned conclusion based on the comments that the one deleting vote had decided that they wanted it deleted and would simply claim any source - no matter how obviously solid - was struck out on the same basis.
- Dealing with these sorts of questions is just a matter of honestly engaging with questions of sourcing: dismissing the additional challenges in referencing a company that is obviously notable to anyone in their operating countries but defunct for some time now (a problem which basically anyone who has worked in that area gets intimately familiar with very quickly), versus a more recent startup as WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- TDW, I can only assume it slipped your mind to ping me but no harm, I got here eventually. You make a couple of interesting points but it would take a long time to respond to all of them. One point you make: An assessment of the sources in the article, therefore, doesn't actually contribute very much to the discussion in any sense is probably why we have different viewpoints. From my point of view, the only reliable yardstick which we can use to measure notability is an assessment of sources (all sources, not just those in the article). I look forward to seeing what you do with this article and the sources (whether offline or online) you find. If it truly was a major multinational chain which dominated its industry in multiple countries for many years as you say, it would be hard to believe that sources cannot be found. HighKing++ 13:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dealing with these sorts of questions is just a matter of honestly engaging with questions of sourcing: dismissing the additional challenges in referencing a company that is obviously notable to anyone in their operating countries but defunct for some time now (a problem which basically anyone who has worked in that area gets intimately familiar with very quickly), versus a more recent startup as WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I find all the recent edits here by Pk to be pointless. I think he must be doing it increase his edit count. I also asked him about it but there is no reply. Please revert the changes. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think this act is going to get you very far with a future application for rollback. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Then what should I do but beg to others. You rejected me; so please help me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Please reply with yes or no so that I ask someone else. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Harshrathod50, if you used rollback for the edits at the linked page, you'd have the right revoked again; you may believe the changes to be ill-informed or counter-productive, but they are not blatantly malicious, and so they need to be undone manually with a meaningful edit summary. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you have to work within the rules and accept compromise sometimes. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wow!. You mean that just about anybody can get WP:ROLLBACK rights just by asking? Not good.
I recently, and nervously, installed WP:TWINKLE, and am experimenting with how to use it best to counter vandalism.
It has never occurred to me to ask for WP:ROLLBACK rights. The only two classes of editors who might use those rights are (1) WP:ADMINs and (2) WP:TROLLs. (After one's first 150,000 edits, a little cynicism may IMO be justified.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)- What are you talking about? Rollback was unbundled from the sysop toolkit nearly 11 years ago, and there are five times as many rollbackers as there are admins. You may have a billion edits, but you've only been here since 2014, so no... feigned "cynicism" is not justified. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: Please don't call me a troll, indirectly. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wow!. You mean that just about anybody can get WP:ROLLBACK rights just by asking? Not good.
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
10 year admin-versary
It seems like just yesterday! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Betterrich95
User:Betterrich95 has made just 3 edits to wikipedia, each of which has consisted of replacing article content with an ad. He has never made a constructive edit. He is WP:NOTHERE. Please block him. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked, thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
- Justlettersandnumbers • L235
- Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
FAC
Nice to see you around, Julian—especially at FAC. Tony (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Bontecou Lake
On 14 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bontecou Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bontecou Lake, near Millbrook, New York, is divided between two drainage basins, making it a bifurcation lake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bontecou Lake. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bontecou Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Good article review
Today I've done my first two reviews for the Good Article Nominations: the Theil-Sen estimator and Ruth A. M. Schmidt. You were listed as one of the possible mentors for new editors. Could you comment on whether I've done it correctly? Specifically
- I have written very little on the Theil-Sen estimator because it is quite obvious that the article passes the criteria. Should I write down explicitly that I've sampled 6 references and did a copyvio test?
- I have maybe finished the review for Ruth A. M. Schmidt. The article relies on primary sources for much of the details, but it well supported by secondary sources which are used very meticulously. I do not have access to the primary sources and some of the statements are seem to be original research. Am I too strict when I comment on those?
- I find it difficult to assess whether the article doesn't go in too much detail. The assessment pages don't give me much to go on.. How would you judge this article?
- Should I put the nomination on hold or wait for a response first?
Thank you in advance! Femkemilene (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Juliancolton,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Juliancolton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
New York State Route 308 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that New York State Route 308 has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 29 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 29, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Add to that Cyclone Althea for December 19.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
- Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
- Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
- A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
- A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.
- Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
- To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
- Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.
- Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
- Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
- Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello Juliancolton,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Cyclone Ada scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Cyclone Ada article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Jimfbleak, thanks for the heads-up. I didn't notice that Ada had been submitted to TFAR! What's done is done, but if we had postponed this by just 13 months, we could have grabbed an elusive 50th anniversary. Just a thought... ;) – Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @TFA coordinators Is there any way of getting Ada postponed by a year per Julian's suggestion, especially as we have Cyclone Althea on the main page this Wednesday.Jason Rees (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously I scheduled this because it was a TFAR request, but I can pull it until next year, leave it with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @TFA coordinators Is there any way of getting Ada postponed by a year per Julian's suggestion, especially as we have Cyclone Althea on the main page this Wednesday.Jason Rees (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
- R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
- G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
- Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- Different from their username
- User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
- Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
- {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
- Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
- Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hey Julian
Long time no see, how are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymich13 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
New York State Route 373 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that New York State Route 373 has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 6 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 6, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
TFA
Thank you today for Cyclone Althea, "one of the most destructive cyclones ever to strike the state of Queensland in the modern era. A lot of the meteorological background and damage statistics are relatively straightforward, but this disaster is arguably most notable for having kickstarted Australia's initiative toward cyclone-resistant building codes. Although Althea was overshadowed by the infamous Cyclone Tracy just a few years later, its legacy can still be seen in the way homes are built in Queensland and across the country."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for what you did for New York State Route 373! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
AFD 2 for Olwen Kelly
I thought you might like to know Olwen Kelly is up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly (2nd nomination). You were involved with the article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 20, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello Juliancolton,
- News
- The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
- Discussions of interest
- Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
- {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
- A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
- There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
- Reminders
- NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
- NPP Tools Report
- Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
- copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
- The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Six years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane, "which caused nearly $10 million in damage, unprecedented at the time—was moving so fast that it assaulted Florida with a "tidal wave" in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 29, and sent trees crashing down upon the Gettysburg Battlefield later that very same day. Along the way, it blew down every tree in a forest the size of Northern Island, caused a dam failure that swept away one community's downtown sector in just moments, toppled an elm tree planted by Abraham Lincoln, prompted weary storm victims to draw comparisons between airborne tin roofing and "giant vampires," and rained quite prodigiously over William McKinley and his front porch campaign—1,000 miles of mayhem in just 24 hours."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Congrats on your DYK puggo (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
... and again today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Portal:New York roads
Portal:New York roads, 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/Portal:New York roads and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:New York roads 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. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Refund request
Hi tracing a red link from Great Southern and Western Railway for John Dewrance (Senior) ... understand you deleted Dewrance & Co. Ltd 27 April 2017 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewrance & Co. Ltd. I am examining the possibility of re-creating an article either for John Dewrance (1st Locomotive engineer of the GS&WR of Ireland +...) or his company and request a WP:REFUND to draft or userfication. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can see your likely busy or otherwise not particularly active so I'll take the request to WP:REFUND. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Djm-leighpark, sorry for the delayed response. As you correctly observed, I haven't been very active on the project lately. I'm not sure whether you decided against filing an undeletion request, but as it doesn't appear that you've accessed the deleted article in any way yet, I simply restored it back to the mainspace for now. There's no particularly sensitive content, so I'm not concerned with rushing to hide it away in a draft or sandbox. Hopefully this helps, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou ... I'd better take a look at it and see if I can do something ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Djm-leighpark, sorry for the delayed response. As you correctly observed, I haven't been very active on the project lately. I'm not sure whether you decided against filing an undeletion request, but as it doesn't appear that you've accessed the deleted article in any way yet, I simply restored it back to the mainspace for now. There's no particularly sensitive content, so I'm not concerned with rushing to hide it away in a draft or sandbox. Hopefully this helps, – Juliancolton | Talk 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Portal:Autumn and Portal:Winter
Portal:Autumn and Portal:Winter, pages 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/Portal:Autumn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Autumn and/or Portal:Winter during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the pages; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Juliancolton,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 WPTC Newsletter
Volume XIV, Issue 39, May 31, 2019 The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Article of the month, by Jason Rees History of tropical cyclone naming - The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with storms named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in each basin. The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees. Storm of the month and other tropical activity Cyclone Fani was an extremely severe cyclonic storm that made landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people.
New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019 More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Editorial for welcoming new users, by Hurricanehink Every year, editors new and old help maintain the new season of season articles. The older users are likely used to the standards of the project, such as how to Wikilink and reference properly. Newer users might make mistakes, and they might make them over and over again if they don't know better. If anyone (who happens to read this) comes across a new user, please don't bite, because with enough pushback, they'll decide that this group of editors is too mean, and unfun. This is all a volunteer project; no one can force anyone to do anything. We're all on here because of our love of knowledge and tropical cyclones. If you find someone new, consider using the official WPTC welcome template - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Welcome. I also encourage that if you know any tropical cyclone researchers, please speak up and try recruiting them to edit. Veteran editors can't keep editing forever. Life gets busy, and the real world beckons! Member of the month (edition) – Yellow Evan Yellow Evan has been involved with WPTC since 2008. Since the last newsletter, Yellow Evan has taken 5 typhoon articles to good article status as well as created 2 more. Overall, he has created and/or significantly contributed to more than 130 good articles. Your work in the Western Pacific Basin is invaluable... Thank you for your contributions! Latest WikiProject Alerts The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here. Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Featured list removal candidates
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles for creation
Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via RSS Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!
This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019.
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments
New articles since the last newsletter include:
New GA's include:
Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics.
From the Main Page From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from April 14–May 31, 2019 in chronological order. WikiProject To-Do Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page.
|
NoahTalk 22:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes
FYI. (3 New Sections.) Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
- Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
- The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
- The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.
Hey
Hey Julian check this page. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Rymich13/Mentor --rymich13 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Rymich13! Glad to see your renewed interest in contributing. :) How have you been? As you've probably gathered, it's a long time since I've been consistently active here. Real life and all that. I sometimes get called out for enforcing the 2012 versions of certain policies, so I'm probably in no position to resume mentoring. Plus, there's no promise I won't get sidetracked with work/hobbies/a new coffee shop and disappear for two more years without warning. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try answering them to the best of my abilities. Otherwise, hope you have fun getting back into the swing of things! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Juliancolton Do you have a separate chat service you use like WhatsApp or discord? If so what’s your name I’ll add you. --rymich13 (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not really. I'm best reached at Special:EmailUser/Juliancolton. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
SIAs are lists, not dabs
Please note that set index articles are list articles, not non-article disambiguation pages. I've undone the changes to the tropical storms SIA page's categorization as dabs rather than lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @JHunterJ: I'm aware of the difference between SIAs and dabs, but not of any guidelines that regulate SIA classification within individual WikiProjects. Nearly all the pages populating Category:Set indices on storms are assessed as
Disambig-Class
, so my changes only standardized a handful of non-conforming pages. With those changes reverted, Category:List-Class Tropical cyclone articles now contains about a dozen tropical cyclone indices out of nearly 700. That does not seem like an ideal solution. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- No, it's not ideal. It would be ideal if they were all properly categorized. Some being correctly categorized and some not -> all being incorrectly categorized is not an improvement, though. If the WikiProject doesn't have a plan to coordinate the fixes, incrementally fixing the miscategorized ones is the way to go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be conflating categorization with assessment scale classification. This has no bearing at all on reader navigation, but is instead purely internal. As far as I can tell, the dabs and indices are all categorized correctly. My interest, for the moment, is in maintaining the Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality hierarchy for WikiProject quality tracking statistics and directories. You're right in that many Dab-Class pages would be more accurately reclassified as SIA-Class in the long-run, but I'm disheartened at your eagerness to revert and admonish me instead of offering to help with any of these incremental fixes. A Category:List-Class Tropical cyclone articles that's evenly split between SIAs and actual content lists is an extremely unhelpful product. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not ideal. It would be ideal if they were all properly categorized. Some being correctly categorized and some not -> all being incorrectly categorized is not an improvement, though. If the WikiProject doesn't have a plan to coordinate the fixes, incrementally fixing the miscategorized ones is the way to go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Keven McDonald
Hello Mr. Colton,
I'm Keven McDonald. Below is a message I just left on the talk page of SVTCobra:
Hello,
I'm Keven McDonald (yes, it's actually me). I want to thank you for the positive feedback you gave me on my talk page. A few days ago I set about correcting and updating a wiki page about me that was created by someone else. My goal was to tighten up some of the slightly inaccurate historical information, make some updates to the information box and most importantly fix some of the poor grammar, syntax and sentence structure. Finally, I wanted to add my photo to breathe some life into the page. What an adventure!
With respect to the picture, that issue is being resolved. Penn is claiming copyright and I've sent the form given to me by JGHowes along to the Athletic Department for their review. One of your colleagues called my reaction to the photo issue as "belligerent". To that I will admit to being annoyed at not being able to put my picture on a page about me. I've since come to better understand Wiki's position relative to copyright and, as mentioned, it's being resolved.
As for the other editions, even though everything I updated about myself is completely factually correct I've received feedback from some of your colleagues saying the editions were "unconstructive", "self interested" and "self promotional". In the information box I updated my education level and included some athletic awards omitted on the original page. In the body of the page I also included an update to my education (law school) and the fact that I currently operate my own business. With respect to my own business, I have seen inumerable wiki pages where the subject's business or current place of work was included so I didn't think this was an issue. I find it ironic that if an anonymous writer includes these things it's fine but if the subject includes accurate occupational information it's "self interested". One thing should be mentioned here, in one of my edits I did link back to my website. That was wrong. I should have taken a deeper dive into Wiki's rules before doing that. The link was removed.
Anyway, I want to thank you again for the positive and constructive feedback. Please pass this along to any of your colleagues who you feel should read what I've said here.
Kmacjdwiki (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmacjdwiki (talk • contribs)
- (by talk reader) @Kmacjdwiki: I can appreciate that this process has been frustrating. Sadly, we find ourselves in this situation quite often. First, I'd like to point out that although an article might be about you, you are exactly the wrong person to edit it because of your conflict of interest. Because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, many people (and businesses) seek to edit/control the article where they have some equity and we (the volunteer editors) are under what feels like continuous assault from these people. This is probably why Wikipedians tend to be insular and prefer to only deal with other long-term well-accomplished volunteer editors rather than the self-interested drive-by editors. We want the objective best result for the encyclopedia not the specific parochial interests of involved parties tainted by money. Second, over the past decade we've developed a lot of sitewide rules that may seem both obscure and silly to outsiders like you. Again, we deal with tens of thousands of biographies and our solutions might not be to your liking. Finally, my advice to you is to simply forget this article exists. It will only be a sore point for you as you are both powerless to negotiate our bureaucracy and you are dis-empowered from preventing outright vandalism let alone honest disagreements. Honestly, those that have had the most success were journalists able to use their platform to write about Wikipedia's system of business and perhaps attract favorable coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kmacjdwiki, Chris has done an excellent job summarizing the many delicate considerations surrounding biographical articles, especially where they have drawn the attention of their subjects, and I endorse every bit of his subsequent advice.
There are, of course, exceptions, but you'll find that most long-term Wikipedia editors are only interested in ensuring adherence to our central content policies. That said, there's absolutely room to improve the manner in which we as experienced users approach overwhelmed novices who may be inadvertently infringing upon those aforementioned rules. That last point is part of the reason why I opened a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding your article; with the promise of uninvolved editors stepping in to offer their guidance, you'd be much less likely to unwittingly cross the three-revert threshold, for instance, and find yourself blocked. For my part, I'd been away from Wikipedia for some time until just this week, and am in the process of reacquainting myself with changes to policy and protocol in my absence. This being the case, it seemed more appropriate to hand the issue off and avoid the risk of giving you outdated or simply bad advice. What has always been true, though, is that contributors are allowed and even encouraged to preserve their anonymity. It may be your impression that pseudonyms are damaging to accountability, and you may be right, but you must assume until proven otherwise that all parties are acting in good faith, regardless of how the letters in their username are arranged. Some of the most divisive figures in this website's history have been very open with their real-world identities, while only two of the top-10 most prolific "featured article" authors edit under their (apparent!) real names. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kmacjdwiki, Chris has done an excellent job summarizing the many delicate considerations surrounding biographical articles, especially where they have drawn the attention of their subjects, and I endorse every bit of his subsequent advice.
- Julian, I must say, I think Chris troutman's message is exactly one of the things we need to improve when dealing with novices. Rather than an excellent summary, I found it to be undiplomatic gatekeeping and quite frankly insulting to Kmacjdwiki, calling him a "self-interested drive-by editor ... tainted by money". Stating he is "powerless" and "dis-empowered". And what the heck was that bit about journalists getting favorable coverage when they use their platform to criticize Wikipedia??? --SVTCobra (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- SVTCobra I can appreciate your view of the above comment, but while Chris troutman's (I'm sure you're tired of being pinged by now, but I hate discussing someone personally without giving them a chance to respond) post was characteristically terse, it was, as I read it, straightforward and objective on the whole. I viewed it as an attempt to be straightforward with Kmacjdwiki. I understood Chris's "powerless" and "dis-empowered" comments to be criticisms of Wikipedia's internal affairs; if that's the case, I agree with him that the system is unfair and almost oppressive to individuals who find their biographical information misrepresented here. In short, I believe the comment struck a cynical tone and not a patronizing one. But I may be wrong – and I assumed there must have been a story behind the journalist remark. Regardless, I thank you for holding me accountable and making sure nothing is taken for granted. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Julian, I must say, I think Chris troutman's message is exactly one of the things we need to improve when dealing with novices. Rather than an excellent summary, I found it to be undiplomatic gatekeeping and quite frankly insulting to Kmacjdwiki, calling him a "self-interested drive-by editor ... tainted by money". Stating he is "powerless" and "dis-empowered". And what the heck was that bit about journalists getting favorable coverage when they use their platform to criticize Wikipedia??? --SVTCobra (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Keven McDonald here. I've recently received yet another notice. I've been instructed by "SportGuy789" to refrain from further editing the site about me until I join the Conflict of Interest discussion. Although I did leave a brief comment on what appears to be the COI board, "SportsGuy" indicated the conversation was better held here.
Honestly, I don't know what's left to discuss. I made a few simple edits to a site about me. The updates to the information box were few and factual including only a few athletic awards omitted by the author. The corrections to the spelling, grammar, syntax and poorly constructed sentences have made the page more readable without interfering with the intent of the original author. The updates to the text of the page included only two things; the fact that I've earned a JD and that I now operate my own business. NONE of this should be a problem. Even the photo issue is now being handled in the manner prescribed by JGHowes. So, again, please tell me what's left to discuss?
What would be helpful to me is if, in addition to the notices, warnings, rules, admonitions and red flags I've received would be if someone would tell me PRECISELY what has to take place in order that my editions and updates be allowed. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL HERE!!
What I don't need is more of Mr. Troutman's obnoxious, condescending and thoroughly insulting comments about how "dis-empowered" I and other "self interested drive by editors" are. What I need now is to be told how and when my edits will be added to the page.
Thank you. I hope this adds to the discussion.
Kmacjdwiki (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald
- @Kmacjdwiki: Post what you want changed about the article to that article's talk page. Then go to WP:RB and offer a reward (which can be free) for those edits to be completed. An un-involved third-party editor can handle it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- All – I will clarify the exact issues with the edits on the Keven McDonald talk page , but not right now. It's a plethora of things and will take a while to put together, which is why I haven't yet done so. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Keven McDonald here. Can someone help me understand what "plethora of things" SportsGuy789 is referring to? Here is the "plethora" he refers to:
1. In the information box I updated the fact I went to law school and some athletic awards, broken down by school or organization, not mentioned by the original author.
2. In the body of the text I also included law school and the fact I now operate my own business. I included the name of my business which I've seen done on any number of Wiki pages. It's come to my attention that the fact that the business name is in all caps could be a red flag. I don't quite get why the size of the letters is relevant but I did it to be consistent with the way the business name appears on my business cards, stationery and website. Again, I find it hard to believe a business name in all caps is a problem or makes me a "self interested drive by editor".
3. Corrected some inaccuracies about my career. The original author made a reference to the fact that I never played a game in the NBA. That is not true. Although my NBA career was brief I did play in several games before being released. I should also note here that several years ago when this page was first brought to my attention I noticed the author incorrectly had my place of birth listed as South Orange, New Jersey. In fact I was born in Newark, New Jersey. I corrected that a long time ago.
4. Fixed some bad spelling, syntax, grammar and poorly written sentences. The page reads much better and none of the author's intent was altered.
5. Attempted to upload a photo. That situation is being handled the way I was told to handle it by one of your colleagues.
So, what "plethora" is he talking about?
Also, Troutman makes the suggestion above that I go out and find a complete stranger, offer them a reward (bribe), perhaps even a free reward (although I'm not familiar with the concept of a "free reward") to make the same edits that I've already made and this would make everything ok. Perhaps that makes sense in a far away universe of which I am unfamiliar but it makes absolutely no sense to me standing here on planet earth. If I, the subject of the page, is considered suspect for making harmless corrections about my own accomplishments how do the edits become more legitimate when made by a complete stranger? The fact that I was born in Newark, not South Orange would remain the same. The fact that I earned a JD would remain the same. The fact that I received the additional athletic awards would remain the same. The fact that I now operate my own business would remain the same. The fact that many of the sentences now make sense would remain the same. The fact that I played in a few NBA games would remain the same. Besides, how would Mr. Troutman be able to distinguish an "un-involved third-party editor" (his words) from a "dis-empowered" "drive by editor" (also his words).
Or perhaps I'm overreacting. Maybe Mr. Troutman was making an attempt at humor that I failed to appreciate. If so, it wasn't funny.
I hope this adds to the discussion.
Kmacjdwiki (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald
- Let's try to keep discussion of content over at Talk:Keven McDonald. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Kmacjdwiki: I would not say you're overreacting. You're understandably frustrated and receiving differently framed instructions from multiple people. I'll try to shed light on a few of the key points:
- Wikipedia is a collaborative work-in-progress, and no one person is expected to craft a finished product. We all attempt to improve upon previous changes. If you feel we're being too critical, know that any necessary corrections will eventually be made by someone else. This isn't hypothetical – one user has helpfully begun to add citations and refine the article's formatting.
- As you've been correctly informed, extensively editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged – all but forbidden. This is codified in our autobiography guidelines and borne out by the real-world concept of conflict of interest. I know it sounds crass, but it doesn't particularly matter that you think the edits constitute unambiguous improvements. Where conflicts of interest exist, all changes to content should be proposed at the appropriate venue (in this case, the article talk page) and implemented by uninvolved editors. Regardless of how uncontroversial your changes may seem, it's nearly impossible to remain impartial. Just think of how you're equating an encyclopedia entry with your personal business cards.
- All information on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources of academic rigor. This is especially true of amendments to existing content. Again, to be completely objective, references must be supplied even if you're only adding that which you know to be true. See our document, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
- A specific question about the veracity of some information has been raised at Talk:Keven McDonald, which is where I'll direct all future discussion about the article's substance. If you have any additional questions, concerns, or gripes about Wikipedia's editing environment in general, I'll happily continue to address them here to the best of my abilities. Otherwise, there's very little for you to do in relation to the article itself. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosa
I do intend to take you up on your offer with Rosa. I want to address the issues you have presented before looking at any other issues. I was planning to do that tonight, but I am experiencing an outage (2 inches of rain last night and more now). I will try and get that done tomorrow morning. NoahTalk 02:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Noah, thanks for stopping by and I'm glad you've decided to pursue further improvements to Rosa. You've crafted a solid base for the article – it just needs some polishing and a bit of fleshing out in spots. Like you, I won't be online much today, but the rest of the week should offer up more opportunities for helping you take care of the issues I spotted. I'm confident that with two of us working on it, it won't take very long at all to get it into position for another FAC. Just let me know where you think my attention would be best focused, and which areas you'd prefer me to stay far away from, if any. See you in the mainspace! – Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am working on implementing your suggestions now. Let me know if the Mexico section is any better. I am working on the US part now. NoahTalk 02:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- All I have left to do is add in information on the 34 YO man's death. Feel free to look over the whole article if you would like. I hope I have adequately addressed all the other suggestions you put forth. NoahTalk 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hurricane Noah Thanks for the follow-up. I'll take a look tomorrow morning and let you know where I think we stand. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- All I have left to do is add in information on the 34 YO man's death. Feel free to look over the whole article if you would like. I hope I have adequately addressed all the other suggestions you put forth. NoahTalk 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am working on implementing your suggestions now. Let me know if the Mexico section is any better. I am working on the US part now. NoahTalk 02:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello? Is everything okay? It has been 10 days. NoahTalk 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: My apologies. I'm sure you've already gathered that I haven't had much (or really any) time to devote to editing over the last couple weeks. As I don't foresee that changing for at least another couple weeks, you may be best off going on ahead without me. I won't stand in the way of another FAC attempt when you feel the article's ready. Again, I'm sorry I fell flat here. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello Juliancolton,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Question on closed AfD
Based on the last point of WP:CLOSEAFD, I wanted to bring up one that you closed last month as 'no consensus/npasr' for two reasons. First, the one regular 'keep' on the AfD has subsequently been blocked as a 'spammer' (although he appears to be functioning with another username) and second, the page's creator appears to have an undisclosed COI (page subject is apparently employer) — these two items don't mix well. WP:COICOIN advises to not 'out' anyone so I am not specifying the page here and now, but I'm wondering if you might have some insight as to address this? I'm not sure how to balance AfD and COI without confusing things. Thanks, ogenstein (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Mothman,
It's hard to offer much useful advice without knowing which article/AfD is in question. If you have reason to believe COI guidelines are being violated based on on-wiki evidence (like if the user says "we" when talking about a business, or self-declares an affiliation with the group), it would not constitute outing to raise the issue at COI/N. If sensitive information has already been made public, either inadvertently by the user themself or by someone else, it needs to be taken care of, so you could email me (or, if it's really problematic, an oversighter). Otherwise, an AfD tainted by spammers and SPAs needs to be revisited. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello
Hey Julian,
How's life treating you? Good to see you around a bit. Are you still getting in a fair amount of photography work? Well, just wanted to say hey. — Ched : ? — 10:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Ched, it's good to see you too my friend. All good on my end – and you? Photography takes up most of my time these days since I made the jump to full-time a while back. Nice to pay the bills doing something I really enjoy, but it sure isn't an easy way to make a living. A truly successful art business takes about 1 parts creativity and 10 parts unremitting self-promotion, and I'm sure you recall that I don't have the kind of outgoing, in-your-face personality of someone who thrives in that arrangement. But ya have to make it work when it's your calling.I'd still like to get back into editing more meaningfully again, but we'll see how far I get on that. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm hanging in there, even if age tends to be a bit kinder to the young than the slightly older. I'm glad you're still doing your photography - it's something you really are good at. I can say I've seen second hand how hard it is to make a living at it though. My brother is a photographer (mostly daycare and pre-school stuff), and it's been tough for him. The quality of the pictures that phones today can turn out makes it really tough for those who relish finding the proper lens, speed, exposure, etc. (and to be honest - my brother has a VERY "in-your-face" personality, at time excessively - but here is not the place to discuss that) Anyway - it really is great to see you about. — Ched : ? — 15:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Capital District for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Capital District is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Capital District (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
38th edition of The Hurricane Herald
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 38 - here's the link to the latest newsletter! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Hello Juliancolton, an article that I have mainly written has been nominated for Good Article by Suavemarimagno in march 2019. Would you mind to review it? or to give an advice for having it reviewed? Best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Philippe49730
With apologies, I don't currently have the time needed to commit to a full review of this relatively substantial article. I suspect that's one of the reasons reviewers have stayed away for so long – at ~5,500 words long and with nearly 200 citations, the article would likely require several days to adequately scrutinize. Regrettably, March 2019 could almost be considered recent in the context of GAN; many nominations were listed in the autumn of 2018 or even earlier. It's quite unfair to article writers, but I don't anticipate the backlog becoming any better-managed in the foreseeable future. For me, it sometimes makes sense to skip GAN altogether, and instead go to FAC after enlisting the help of a few uninvolved copyeditors. Sorry I can't be of greater assistance, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer Juliancolton. All my very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if you took my comments the wrong way
Hello Julian,
First off, thank you so much for your comments on the RfA. Your consideration means a lot in these stressful and anxious times. My goal is to always make the encyclopedia better. Reading your oppose really touched me. I never saw my comments in that intention and I want to apologize if it made me seem like someone who is demanding or rushing. At the FAC, I take every comment very seriously and use them to learn. I would never try to push back or deny someones comments unless I felt there was some criticism needed. I again really apologize if you felt I was being a bit demanding in the FA. I have learned from those comments and promise to do better. That avengers analogy was a light hearted comment that came from my mind (I literally rewatched Endgame the night before). I hope we can have a good wiki-relationship and work together. As for the RfA, I am keeping it open in order to answer and review all questions and concerns. I really do not want to disappoint NorthAmerica or the people who took time to comment.
Thank you again for your RfA comment. Best, AmericanAir88(talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @AmericanAir88: Hi, thank you for stopping by and clarifying your position. Please know that I don't doubt your good intentions. FAC can be a grueling process, with lots of arcane customs and nuanced rules of etiquette. If you haven't been a participant there for years, it's easy to get lost. That you've given serious consideration to my concerns reflects very well on you as an editor and an individual, and leads me to believe that a successful second RfA is not far off. Who knows? maybe I'll even put my name behind it. In the meantime, I'd like to offer a bit of heartfelt advice which you can feel free to ignore: if it were me, I'd withdraw the RfA sooner than later. At this point, you've received volumes of solid input on how to position yourself for a second attempt, and folks are starting to repeat themselves. You're up to nearly 30 questions now, and you don't need the continued stress of trying to stay on top of them (or face admonishments for taking your time/answering out of order). Having nominated 15 users for RfA and participated in somewhere around 750 other candidacies, it's been my experience that voters in subsequent attempts view withdrawals as pragmatic and humbled, while "staying the course", so to speak, often garners some opposes the next time around if the result had been obvious for multiple days. But it's your call and only you can decide what's right. Best regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: Thank you so much for responding. I had a dental procedure yesterday that put me out and I am trying to answer all of the remaining questions. I am still staying with the RFA as I want to stay strong and believe the community is not at a total "oppose" consensus left. I want to do what is best for Wikipedia. Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Question from GA newbie
Hi Julian! Since you've kindly volunteered to mentor good article reviewers, could I ask you to take a look at Tiberius (son of Heraclius)? I've recently started reviewing GA nominations and having lots of fun with it. But with the Tiberius case, I've now edited the article very extensively myself so I'm wondering what the right process is at this point. Could I still pass it myself or should we request a new reviewer? Haukur (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
"Template:Winter Storms" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Winter Storms. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Winter Storms redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thanking you for your support during my recent unsuccessful RfA.Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hello!
Hi! Sorry to bother you. I'm currently nominating an article of mine for GA status; after some observations, I've found that you're a member of the Good Article WikiProject, and an frequent editor on Wikipedia per August. If you have time, could you review the article if nobody has done it yet? (I'm messaging several other users in this format, just in case)
If you decline due to various reasons, could you recommend another potential user to review it? Thank you in advance. Dhio-270599 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Article
Hello, I've decided that I'm going to write a new article for flusha. The previous article was deleted and turned into a redirect 2 years ago, so I'm just letting you know about what I plan to do, as advised by the Teahouse. Unless if you have any objections, I will expand the redirect as per WP:RTOA.Lxxl (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
- Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
- Floquenbeam • Lectonar
- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Juliancolton,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
11 years of adminship
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Your instant recall page
(Non-administrator comment)I like that very much and I respect you for having it. I will not be signing it, not for a one off tiff at RfA. Hell, having that page balances my opinion back to where it was before your comment at RfA -- neither positive nor negative. Everyone has lapses, one should always judge and expect to be judged by others on how one recovers from, and does not repeat the lapses one inevitably makes. Jbh Talk 05:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: Thank you for saying so. I know the instructions could be improved (for instance, who qualifies as a "long-term" editor?) but I value simplicity and don't want the process bogged down with disclaimers and criteria. I genuinely do believe that, if three people who generally know their way around the project—regardless of editcount or account age—think I shouldn't be an admin anymore, then I probably shouldn't. If it turns out that there was no basis for recall, the community can reinstate me in seven short days. I've always subscribed to the nobigdeal school of thought, but nobigdeal must he true for both appointment and removal as an admin. Anyway, I suspect you understand my position, and if you have any suggestions on how the "introduction" to User:Juliancolton/Recall could be made more elegant and clear, I'd very much appreciate your feedback.
Re the Kees RfA, I owe you an apology for responding impulsively on being called out. I maintain that such a sharp reprimand was not necessary at first encounter, but that's your call, not mine; my job as an admin is to receive criticism in good faith and respond substantively. In this case I did not rise to those expectations. I'm not as active in community affairs as I once was, so I'm not sure when our paths will next cross, but I hope that our future interactions will not be negatively swayed by my behavior this week. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have a suggestion for your "Introduction".
- Rule number 1: Come talk to Julian and try to come to some sort of understanding.
- Rule number 2: If you followed Rule number 1, you won't need Rule number 2.
- — Ched (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. No lingering issues for me. I was a bit harsher than I would typically be because of the circumstances - I had already dealt with a couple people, in my view, crossing the line addressing my oppose. After that seeing two admins 'picking on' someone who says they are 18 yrs old on their user page was just more than I could be dispassionate about. I try to be direct but not rude and I was a bit ruder than maybe was called for. I hope you will forgive me that.
As to the introduction to your recall, I do not think it really needs one although linking to it from your user or talk page, or some other way of making it more visible might be good. In that case maybe put something in about stating a reason along with a signature would help keep down bad faith signatures that the increased exposure could bring.
One of the issues here re voluntary recall is that there is no mechanism, beyond the individual admin's honor, to enforce it. This means that, in practice, the only admins who have and would follow a voluntary recall are not the ones who are problematic. I have been thinking about a way to make a 'voluntary' recall have enough teeth that they can be used by, for instance, marginal RfA candidates to remove the 'admin for life' concerns that can result in opposes. I wrote an essay last year, Binding community recall, to get my initial thoughts down. The core is based on the idea of logged voluntary editing restrictions, which were clarified at this RfC on enforcability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. The strength, in my opinion, is there should be no need for policy changes or overhaul of the admin system since it is an individual agreement between a given admin and the community
If you have any ideas or comments, positive or negative, on the idea or how it could be implemented I would be very interested. I think WP needs to realize that, with the current size and importance of enwp, being an admin is a big deal, that admins in general have a large effect on the editing environment and are now more than simple janitors. WP:FRAM is/was, whatever else, an outgrowth of this change.
Cheers. Jbh Talk 14:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 US Banknote Contest
US Banknote Contest | ||
---|---|---|
November-December 2019 | ||
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here |
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
Air Bud: Aussie Rules
I noticed that, about a decade ago, Air Bud: Aussie Rules was nominated for deletion, and that the final consensus was to have the article redirected to Air Bud. Given that no reliable sources have even alluded to the film being considered by the scriptwriters at all, it probably is best to have Air Bud: Aussie Rules listed at Redirects for Discussion. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
"Air Bud: Aussie Rules" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Air Bud: Aussie Rules. Since you had some involvement with the Air Bud: Aussie Rules redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Juliancolton,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 812 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
My sandbox deletion
I have a question. If my sandbox is MY sandbox, and I'm allowed to experiment on it, how is it using Wikipedia as a web host? It is MY sandbox, and I can do whatever I want on it. Why are you deleting my work that was merely for fun? Sandboxes are supposed to be used for experimenting on Wikipedia, and that's what you did. Please restore my sandbox. This is seriously annoying if I can't just use a sandbox for what it is and not do what I want in it without it being deleted every 5 hours. Hurricaneboy23 00:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Hurricaneboy23: first off, you do not own your user pages and sandboxes. Yes, they are for you to experiment, provided the content in there is related to improving Wikipedia (i.e. building a better encyclopedia). Maintaining a page on hypothetical cyclones, as you claim to be doing so on your user page (I can't view the deleted material), is not useful to the project since there is no chance any of the material there becomes reality. WP:UPNOT describes material that should not be in user space (your hypothetical cyclones fall under "Excessive unrelated content"). Please do not use Wikipedia to host your predictions or fantasies; other venues like Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki exist for such purposes. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricaneboy23: KN2731 is very much correct. There must be thousands of existing wikis where you can do things "merely for fun"—to say nothing of the ease with which you can just go create your own—so why choose the one where you've been told several times now that such edits are not welcome? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia utilized by millions of people, and even userboxes are visible to the public; deliberately falsifying information, especially in relation to deadly natural disasters, is disgraceful. We all welcome and appreciate your factual contributions to meteorology articles. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
Interface administrator changes
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Io Saturnalia!
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays
Cheers
Merry Christmas Juliancolton | |
Hi Juliancolton, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはJuliancoltonたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Resources for finding county-level statistics
- Census QuickFacts
- Social Capital Variables Spreadsheet for 2014, PennState College of Agricultural Sciences, Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development
- Social Capital Project: Social Capital Index Data spreadsheet accompanying the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Social Capital Project. “The Geography of Social Capital in America.” Report prepared by the Vice Chairman’s staff, 115th Cong., 2nd Sess. (April 2018)
- Religious statistics by county
- PeakVisor, search for "X County" to find high points in a county
- ebird, gives bird species lists for each county
- Midwest Herbaria, search to generate plant species lists for each county
- Mycoportal, search to generate fungus and bryophyte species lists
- NASS QuickStats database, gives agricultural figures by county for many data points
- bestplaces.net--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Cyclone Ada scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Cyclone Ada article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 3, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 3, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article "about a natural disaster that can be considered a precursor to the subject of my most recent FAC, Cyclone Althea. Taking place one year earlier and a little to the south, Ada destroyed just about every resort in the booming Whitsunday Islands, ruining lots of holidays/vacations. Though all traces of the cyclone are long gone, it still periodically breaches the surface of the public consciousness when politicians talk about how nice it would be to erect a memorial somewhere, or belatedly honor particularly brave helpers in the storm's aftermath."! Happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Nomination of Tropical Depression Ten (2005) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tropical Depression Ten (2005) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten (2005) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JavaHurricane 11:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A goat for you!
Saw your edits.around, just wanted to say: Thank you!
Puddleglum 2.0 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
- 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.
- 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. [3]
- 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
- 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!
TheTexasNationalist99
Hi. Thanks for your edits to the Orange County, NY locations. Can you figure out what this editor is trying to do? He/she seems to be deleting significant material from hundreds of towns and cities, including well-referenced information about them. Are even the "technical" edits that they are making correct? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ssilvers: I'm genuinely not sure what this user is trying to do. They seem to believe that article "improvement" entails the wholesale removal of images, sources, and anything else that isn't a wall of text. Many location articles are quite cluttered, but this needs to be resolved carefully, deliberately, and one page at a time... it seems that we're very much throwing the baby out the bathwater with many of these recent edits. I'll keep a close eye on my watchlist in the coming days to hopefully keep this issue under control. Thanks for the note, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ssilvers: and @Juliancolton:, I did not intend the wholesale removal of images, sources, and anything else that wasn't a wall of text. I was trying to see where they could be placed alternatively in the article. We shall resolve this via discussion. And hundreds of towns and cities? You are making false accusations...--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
TheTexasNationalist99, what you need to do is to explain, step-by-step, what changes you think ought to be made to each article on that article's Talk page. Then, if other editors agree with one or more of those changes, they can be made. I agree with Juliancolton's comments elsewhere that many of your edits appear to be poor stylistically or grammatically, and contain WP:MOS errors, in addition to simply deleting obviously relevant helpful information. So, please slow down and maybe we can help you to edit articles in a more constructive way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Requests for permissions/Rollback
Hello, I would like to ask you to reconsider my request for rollback permissions. I get that Rollback is not meant to give anyone a competitive edge over other RC patrollers. My point was that I saw using Huggle is faster , speed isn't everything and it still has to be done accurately, constantly clicking links is annoying though when it can be done using a tool like Huggle, it seems to be more convenient than using the RC page and Twinkle, although it does the job.
If my request will not be reconsidered I would like to know in how many days I can re-request for the permission. (I couldn't find an answer to that) Thanks in advance, -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @TruthToBeSpoken: I'm glad this is understood. I still feel your track record of anti-vandalism is short, and that it's therefore hard to judge how you'd deal with anything but clear-cut vandalism. And I'm still not thrilled with your comment about feeling a "rush" when you beat other vandal-fighters to the punch. I'd be willing to grant rollback on a probationary basis – perhaps for a month – with the intention of reinstating the right for good if it seems that you are indeed exercising due caution with rapid-fire tools like Huggle. Would that be acceptable? – Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Thank you for reconsidering. Will the right automatically expire and I just re-apply or should I contact you myself here one-month from now on March 8? With rush I meant the feeling of reverting a lot of vandalism which felt good. Thank you, -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please feel free to contact me when the period is over, or apply on the main PERM page if you'd rather seek the opinion of someone else. It's your call. In the meantime... Done and thanks for volunteering to help out in this added capacity. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! I'll be in touch once the period is over. -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please feel free to contact me when the period is over, or apply on the main PERM page if you'd rather seek the opinion of someone else. It's your call. In the meantime... Done and thanks for volunteering to help out in this added capacity. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Thank you for reconsidering. Will the right automatically expire and I just re-apply or should I contact you myself here one-month from now on March 8? With rush I meant the feeling of reverting a lot of vandalism which felt good. Thank you, -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello Juliancolton,
- 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)
Unblock request
Trodwixi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for personal attacks & harassment, but the only edit was to create then blank a user page which contains no obvious harassment. Can you fill me in on the background please? Email if you like. UTRS appeal #29048 applies. Thanks, Guy (help!) 09:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: That was an unfortunate mistake on my part. Tridwoxi reported Trodwixi to UAA for impersonation, and while trying to validate this claim I misread the new user's contribution history. I have unblocked. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help. I do have a question. To avoid any misunderstanding in the future, would it be a good idea to change my username? Trodwixi (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Trodwixi, yes please. Guy (help!) 15:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Seven years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
RfB
I'm not sure when the last time you were asked was, but would you consider running for RfB since 2010? I can't say I always completely agree with you, but someplace somewhere sometime ago when I was a wee young editor, I remember your guidance lead me on the path to where I am today. I still take your view as a refreshing step to make sure I'm on the right page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I found it, it was my old admin coaching. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Amanda, thanks for the note. :) I'm really glad to hear that I've been some sort of positive influence over the years. I recall being so impressed by your evolution as an editor leading up to your adminship, and ultimately, your role as a pillar of the community. I'm honored if you think that I played even a tiny role in that! And of course I'm still thrilled that you decided to return after your recent break. To address your question, at the end of RfB_2, I promised myself that I wouldn't run again unless, by some miracle, I was still active in ten years. Honestly, I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or pleasantly surprised with myself for still being involved in the project now that those ten years are up.
My main concerns at this point would be as follows: my activity has been sporadic for many years as I've progressed through my education, career, and life; 2) I can think of a few instances since 2010 when I've been less gracious than I expect of myself, mostly during periods of frustration with the project; and 3, I'm not sure the current 'crats need any help (but you'd know best, of course!). Now that things seem a little more stable for me IRL, I expect to devote more time to the project for the foreseeable future. If that turns out to be the case, I could probably be persuaded to offer my services again somewhere down the line. I was a 'crat on Commons and Meta and had my share of fun with the buttons, so if I do ever throw my hat in the ring again, it'll only be because there's a real need that people think I could help fill. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)- It seems like you are watching WP:BN enough to know that there has been a call for more 'crats, though some systemically oppose the idea. I honestly think you would be a solid addition (despite the currently running RfBs). I have finally been able to load your edit counter (I couldn't the other day when I posted this. I can see the sporadic activity concern, but I do think you can make an argument that you've still stuck around consistently. The other big thing I used in my RfB was my closure of RfX(C, D, etc.) to show that I really do listen to a community voice, and even your most recent BN closure indicates that you are a think first, act second person, which is need for the primary skillset of a crat.
- We all have frustration with the project, we've all done stupid shit because of that frustration. I'm not going to outline the kind of things I have done here for public dissemination, but if you are concerned about it, i'm happy to engage in an email conversation on this matter and at least explain my end. The important part is we come back with an open mind and we don't do anything stupid enough in the first place to get blocked, desysoped or decrated.
- My thought for the needs for new crats is in crat chats so we don't become as deadlocked as we did on this last one. Of course, that's not ever guaranteed, but it's less likely with the more active crats we have. WTT made a solid point of how many have fallen inactive or have been lost in the past year, and i'll make the point of us possibly losing at least 2 this year if activity doesn't pick up. This is not meant to be a sales pitch, you indicated you knew that this is a hard place to sit and decide consensus for a whole project, but I would like to have you as a colleague. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You've given me quite a bit to think about. Let me organize my thoughts and I'll reach out to you via email soon. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- For whatever my opinion is worth Julian, I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda. You are one of the most level-headed, fair, and calm mannered admins I've known in my entire time on the site (and have always been quite mature for your age). I think your temperament is a perfect match for being a 'crat, and I don't believe the few times you've been willing to let yourself speak a bit too freely should (nor would) be counted against you by the majority of people at RfB. I hope you listen to her advice, but of course the decision is yours. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Coffee. Your opinion is worth a lot to me, and I really appreciate the kind words and encouragement. I'm definitely taking all this feedback on-board. (And if any talk page stalkers want to argue the opposite position, I'd love to hear that, too!) But any case, it's always great to hear from you. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- For whatever my opinion is worth Julian, I agree wholeheartedly with Amanda. You are one of the most level-headed, fair, and calm mannered admins I've known in my entire time on the site (and have always been quite mature for your age). I think your temperament is a perfect match for being a 'crat, and I don't believe the few times you've been willing to let yourself speak a bit too freely should (nor would) be counted against you by the majority of people at RfB. I hope you listen to her advice, but of course the decision is yours. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. You've given me quite a bit to think about. Let me organize my thoughts and I'll reach out to you via email soon. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Amanda, thanks for the note. :) I'm really glad to hear that I've been some sort of positive influence over the years. I recall being so impressed by your evolution as an editor leading up to your adminship, and ultimately, your role as a pillar of the community. I'm honored if you think that I played even a tiny role in that! And of course I'm still thrilled that you decided to return after your recent break. To address your question, at the end of RfB_2, I promised myself that I wouldn't run again unless, by some miracle, I was still active in ten years. Honestly, I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or pleasantly surprised with myself for still being involved in the project now that those ten years are up.
Christophe Benoit
Hey there, saw your comments. Have you not heard the Chris Benoit story? His name was actually Christopher Benoit, he killed his wife, kid and then himself. Keep an eye on that account, you may be right and I wrong but it's worth watching. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Hell in a Bucket: I have heard the tragic story, and it's possible the username is a reference to that, but we very very rarely block accounts that have not edited for username violations. Plus, according to http://howmanyofme.com, there are 120 people in the US alone named Christopher Benoit. Worth keeping an eye on it, but I like to point to the Streisand effect in cases like this. The "offending" username would have likely slipped through the cracks, never to see the light of day, but now it's been plastered all over hundreds of watchlists by virtue of being reported at UAA. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, it's a pleasure to "see" you again. Been a while. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks and yes, the last few years were hectic but completed three college degrees and working on getting admitted into a graduate program. I hesitate writing that because I am lazy when I type and rarely spell check. Nice to see you too and thanks for the explanation, works for me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the AlikotoSam (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
F5pillar rollback request
Hi, am F5pillar sorry i didn't notice that Fastily already reply's my message first, thats why I requested it in the request page. Please don't be offended as you can see I request there first before replying his message. (Say something (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @F5pillar: I don't think that is entirely truthful. You acknowledged Fastily's reply and then revisited your RFP/R request to correct your diction, at which time you had every opportunity to withdraw your request, or, at the very least, disclose that a direct request had already been denied. Also, per WP:CUSTOMSIG, please adjust your signature so at least some part of it refers to your real username. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
You Know I was waiting for the notification in my alert box, but seems he didn't tag my name which will make me see a alert in my notification box. So that's why I firstly request it in request page, and letter I went to view his talk page. You can see the time sent and the reply time. And on the signature, I will change it, its seems confuse to some replying my message. Thanks (Say something (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Your GA nomination of Hurricane Humberto (2019)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Humberto (2019) 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 Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hurricane Humberto (2019)
The article Hurricane Humberto (2019) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Humberto (2019) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Request for rollback permissions
Hello Julian,
Yesterday my rollback rights automatically expired after one month (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juliancolton&oldid=939809680#Requests%20for%20permissions/Rollback), I would like to request them permanently now or extend the permission for one month should you believe I do not yet have sufficient history after this month to grant the right permanently. Last 2 weeks I haven't been active fighting vandalism due to vacation. Thank you in advance, -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @TruthToBeSpoken: OK, looks good (and it's hard to believe a month has already passed!). Done – Juliancolton | Talk 13:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: Thank you for your trust. The month has passed really fast, I couldn't believe it either, and then it came to mind! -- TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Rollback Rights
Hi, I had requested for Rollback rights a few days back. As you suggested I have tried to do rollbacks manually through the Recent Changes page. However, I am successful very fewer times because before I reach and do it somebody else would have done it already. That makes me wonder, is it means we have enough Rollbackers already or am I doing it too slow! I have tried to use Huggle but we need Rollbackers rights to use it.
I would like to ask is there any other way we can do it more efficiently and fastly? Is there any chance you can give me the rights for a specific time period and then do the assessment? Thank you.
- The9Man | (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @The9Man: I've gone ahead and assigned rollback to your account to hopefully make things easier. Please be sure to use the tool carefully and always verify before reverting. Best regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton:, Thank you very much for showing the trust. I will take extra care while using the rights. - The9Man | (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Request
Respected sir, I applied for Roll backer. I have been in wikipedia since December 2018. I kindly request you to go through my application and promote me to Roll backer if I'm eligible. If I'm not eligible, please mention me reasons so that I can improve my self. Thanking you. Your's obediently. Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir, I don't want to use it for power or misuse my power. I just want to revert vandalistic edits. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir I didn't ask admin to resign Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Asking permission
Sir, what can I do to become a roll backer? Am I supposed to apply again or not needed? If I apply again, I won't do as I did now. I didn't know whether it was right or wrong. I was curious to know whether I was eligible or not. Other than that I didn't mean anything sir. Please forgive me sir. I promise you that I never repeat this again. Thanking you. Your's obediently. Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Apology
Sir, I didn't ask to resign. It was another user. I'm extremely sorry sir. But please excuse me sir. I didn't ask any admin to resign. I think it was user "Vivek ji 123". I didn't remember. I just wanted to know whether I was eligible or not. Sir please forgive me if I did mistake. Even now I want to know where I went wrong. I convey my sincere apologies to all admins. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir, please tell me what can I do to become roll backer. I want to become Roll backer and suppress vandalism. Please give me guidance sir Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sri Harsha 191817, (talk page watcher) here: you don't need rollback permissions to effectively fight vandalism. Use Twinkle. After you establish solid experience using Twinkle to revert and warn users over a period of time, admins will have a track record to look at when considering additional permissions. Personally, I find Twinkle much better for reverting vandalism than Huggle. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir, My main intention is to make it clear that I didn't ask admin sir to resign. It was another user named "Vivek ji 123" who asked it. Not me sir. I didn't do mistake but admin sirs are mis-understanding me. I applied for different posts in order to suppress vandalism not for any other reasons. Thanking you Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Sri Harsha 191817: You're right; I apologize for the error and I have retracted the false part of my comment. To answer your question below, it would be best to follow Schazjmd's advice and spend some time gaining more experience with anti-vandalism work. As they explain, rollback is helpful but not by any means necessary. There is no limit to how often you can apply, but it is generally wise to wait several weeks between requests. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
39th edition of The Hurricane Herald!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 39 ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Rollback rights request
Dear Juliancolton
I would request you kindly provide/approve rollback rights. I intend to use this tool to stop vandalism. I have gone through WP:VANDAL and WP:ROLLBACK and have reverted few times vandalism and helped in increasing the page protection on the basis of attacks. I have also made a Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 1893 Hurricane San Roque
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1893 Hurricane San Roque 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 Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 1893 Hurricane San Roque
The article 1893 Hurricane San Roque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1893 Hurricane San Roque for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Great to see you around too
It was a combination of finally receiving a crat inactivity notice, a couple of recent life changes, and stay-at-home orders. I've always wanted to spend more time on wiki, but it took a perfect storm to get me going. I see you're still at it with the hurricanes. Still got your own IRC channel? bibliomaniac15 06:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
"Timeline of the 2005 Pacific typhoon seaosn" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Timeline of the 2005 Pacific typhoon seaosn. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Timeline of the 2005 Pacific typhoon seaosn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Pre-FAC review
Would you be willing to do a pre-FAC review of Hurricane Willa? NoahTalk 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
- CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
- Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
GA review of Stratopedarches
So, I'm reviewing Stratopedarches for GA, and I'm having trouble with the template. I'm pretty sure the article passed for everything, so it shouldn't be that difficult, except for the fact that I'm awful with wiki markup even though I use it so much. You think you could help, since you are good at GA stuff? I told the nom I'd have the review done yesterday. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Juliancolton,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
TCR Images
Are we allowed to upload the images used in the TCR? specifically pg 27 and 29 in this case? NoahTalk 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm gonna jump in Hurricane Noah. No, the images are not allowable. If they were images made by NHC/NWS employees (like graphs or satellite imagery), then they would be good to use, but these images were taken by other people and published by the NHC. As a result, the images are not public domain, nor would they fall under fair use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
Thank you for completing 3 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias talk 08:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC) |
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
"Template:Vacation5" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Vacation5. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 4#Template:Vacation5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for your part of Hurricane Gordon (2006), about a hurricane not only for Florida, but with "individuals affected ... been eating fish and chips, drinking Guinness, or driving on the Autovía de los Pantanos"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Gonzalo scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Hurricane Gonzalo article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 12, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 12, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry for re-reverting you on 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. I thought it was an unexplained revert, but you did explain on Arthur's page. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!
October GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the October 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on October 1, and will continue until the end of the month. |
-- Eddie891 Talk Work 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
- Ajpolino • LuK3
- Jackmcbarn
- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
- There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
TFA
Thank you today for Hurricane Gonzalo, a fine article indeed! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 8/GA1
Hi, this is my first GA review and so I wanted to check with one of the GA mentors to make sure everything was done correctly. The page I have basically finished reviewing is here Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 8/GA1, I am waiting on fixes for mostly minor grammar issues. Thanks for your time and help! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Beating the dead horse2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Kei Industries Limited
Hello, is Kei Industries Limited substantially different from the version you deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEI Industries? Thanks, Captain Calm (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Natalis soli invicto!
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Good article drive notice
Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Eight years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
- Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
- The user group
oversight
will be renamed tosuppress
. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
- Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 10, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 10, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article, introduced "Despite not being as long as my last several nominations, this article may be one of my best. I personally find the storm fascinating, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time polishing the article over the past year, and the result is something I'm quite proud of."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive | |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Requesting help for GA nomination process
Greetings @Juliancolton:
I am reviewing an article for GA status for my first time, and, following instructions, am seeking a mentor to verify that I am not screwing up too badly. I noticed you were on the list, and so decided to badger you!
Would you be available to look at the review? Let me know! Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 17, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 17, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
48th issue of Hurricane Herald newsletter
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 48 LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hurricane Fay (2014) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Hurricane Fay (2014) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 10, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit request on user page
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the template {{User Commons/Administrator}} on the user page as Juliancolton was removed the admin rights on Commons per C:Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.191.206 (talk)
- Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello Juliancolton,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Nomination for deletion of Template:2009-2010 flu pandemic table
Template:2009-2010 flu pandemic table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Please disregard the TFA notification left by Jimfbleak for October 10. We accidentally scheduled it for a second run in October when it had run in June.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Tropical Storm Allison
I have nominated Tropical Storm Allison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Io, Saturnalia!
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year!
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
Discussion about a move that is blocked by a block you put in place
Hi, can you comment about my request to move? It's blocked because of a block that I think you put in. Discussion is happening here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests CT55555 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:1973 Atlantic hurricane season timeline
Template:1973 Atlantic hurricane season timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
- The user group
oversight
will be renamedsuppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 March 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Precious anniversary
Nine years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for Racer's hurricane, introduced as "about a multi-faceted hurricane that proved one of the most severe of its time. It's among the earliest storms for which we have anything resembling a comprehensive record. Along its 2000+ mile track, it ensnared meteorologists, tossed ships ashore in droves, inundated barrier islands, and, as its last act, caused one of the great maritime tragedies of the 19th century. Using a variety of both contemporary and modern sources, I've created what I'm certain is the most comprehensive story ever told about this fascinating storm."! - Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Adminship
Hi, I've just self-nominated for an adminship. I was wondering whether you would bes so kind as to also nominate me and check that I have completed the process successfully below. Thanks very much for your time. P.S The best example of my work is probably https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Welsh_devolution I made the page myself and the vast majority of contributions. Titus Gold (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentry
anddeletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
"The Demented Cartoon Movie" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Demented Cartoon Movie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#The Demented Cartoon Movie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Juliancolton,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 812 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 846 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Juliancolton,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14867 articles, as of 18:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Hurricane Irene
I have nominated Hurricane Irene (1999) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
user_global_editcount
is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Hi, am i misunderstanding aphelion in Comet Kohoutek? This doesn't sound right
"Maran believed that the comet initially had a perihelion farther out than the orbit of Jupiter until it was gravitationally perturbed by a passing star, lowering its perihelion to within the orbit of Mercury and its aphelion to 4–5 million mi (6–8 million km) from the Sun; additional gravitational interactions between the comet and the planets would have shortened the comet's orbital period further to about 75,000 years." thanks for your time. Rich (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
- An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
- An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
- The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
- Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
- The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
- You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
- Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
- Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello Juliancolton,
- Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
- Coordination
- MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
- Open letter to the WMF
- The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
- TIP - Reviewing by subject
- Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
- New reviewers
- The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
Hi Juliancolton,
- Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
- A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
- An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
- The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
- The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.
- An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
- The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
- The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
- Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Tropical Storm Carrie (1972), introduced in a personal way in 2011: "Call me Julian. Some days ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no activity in my contribution history, and nothing particular to interest me on FAC, I thought I would browse about a little and see the watery part of the project. It is a way I have of driving off the boredom, and regulating the keyboard. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the fingers; whenever it is a blank, empty page on my computer screen; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before articles for deletion, and bringing up the rear of every stub-class article I meet; and especially whenever my typos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately misspelling words, and methodically opposing people's nominations—then, I account it high time to expand an article as soon as I can."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
Hurricane Juan Featured article review
I have nominated Hurricane Juan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Request for nomination as a wikipedia admin
I hereby request you to evaluate me and my chances of becoming a Wikipedia admin. I mostly use my mobile phone to make edits since i usually make them while on the go. If you find my edits and request okay, please nominate me. Alvinategyeka (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
- The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
- An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
- AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
- You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
- Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like
{{rangeblock|create=yes}}
or{{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.
GA Mentoring
Hey, I recently completed my first GA review over at Talk:Deveselu Military Base/GA1, and would appreciate if you could evaluate my review, provide any tips or advice for future reviews and comment on anything I did or did not do well, thanks in advance! Oxi (Contact me) 16:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
16th anniversary on Wikipedia!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Juliancolton! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Please accept the belated request below which we should have offered you a year ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC) |
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear Juliancolton/Archive 38,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Juliancolton! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC) |
WikiProject Weather: Map Dot & Template/Infobox Colors
Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.
We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. NoahTalk 03:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
- Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
- The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
- An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
- A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
- The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
- A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
- Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add
/64
to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐!~ メリークリスマス!~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!
Hello, Juliancolton! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Kalends of January
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Featured article review Hurricane Gustav (2002)
User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Hurricane Gustav (2002) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
TFL notification
Hi, Juliancolton. I'm just posting to let you know that Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The article March 18–21, 1958, nor'easter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Appears to fail WP:GNG; a search turns up nothing
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
- Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
- A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment
.
- Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)
- The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus
. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged tonote when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful
.
- Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
- The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
- There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
- Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
- Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
- Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
- Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
- Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
- An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
- The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:RPPD request
Hello, I believe you are aware that I've been addressing the tracked syntax error on Wikipedia called the Tidy Font bug, (user specified colored links not displaying the correct color). I'm down to the last few hundred of this error and two pages you protected, User talk:Osarius/Archive 1 (2009) and User talk:Osarius/Archive 4 (2011) have a few of this error. As the page-protector, do you have any objections to lowering these two pages to Extended Confirmed (either temporarily or indefinitely) so I could address these and the other WP:LINT errors on the page? While I don't think you do, I'm still required to ask.
Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Zinnober9, no objection here – protection lowered. Thanks for all your work on this initiative. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Both pages now clean. There were 10,000+ counts of this error when I started focusing on it in May, and while I haven't been the only one bringing this type down, I've been a major driving force. Got it under 200 a few minutes ago and should be done this weekend I'd think. Wouldn't have gotten there without assistance from you and a few other helpful admin that have granted my many requests these past few months! Greatly appreciated. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
- Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
- The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
- Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsalt request: Luan Muça
There is currently a draft at Draft:Luan Muça that would be approved, but the base title in main space is salted by you. Could you unprotect the title? Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 20:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- ToadetteEdit, done, sorry for the delay. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
I have nominated List of Los Angeles Rams head coaches for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Portal:Battleships
Portal:Battleships, 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/Portal:Battleships and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Battleships 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. Schierbecker (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.''Flux55'' (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination for 1949 Texas hurricane is under reassessment
Hey JC, I wanted to help with the GA reassessment drive, and started with 1949 Texas hurricane. No hard feelings, it pales compared to some of your other work. I'm not even sure if you're editing these days, but thought I'd let you know. Here is the link to the reassessment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)
Tropical Storm Jerry (2001) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Cosme (2007)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Cosme (2007)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AATalk 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Isaac (2006)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Isaac (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AATalk 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Karl (1980)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Karl (1980)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AATalk 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Lili (1990)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Lili (1990)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AATalk 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Noah, AATalk 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for 1949 Texas hurricane
1949 Texas hurricane has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Merger discussion for Tropical Storm Debby (2006)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Tropical Storm Debby (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ''Flux55'' (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Hurricane Cosme (2007)
Hurricane Cosme (2007) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just noticing here that was simply a procedural delist following a 10-day merger discussion. Noah, AATalk 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Joyce (2000)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Joyce (2000)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ''Flux55'' (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Hurricane Fran (1973)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fran (1973)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Hurricane Isaac (2006)
Hurricane Isaac (2006) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 14:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Hurricane Lili (1990)
Hurricane Lili (1990) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 14:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Always precious
Eleven years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Good article reassessment for Hurricane Karl (1980)
Hurricane Karl (1980) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Hurricane Juliette (1995)
Hurricane Juliette (1995) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Noah, AATalk 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Good article reassessment for 1943 Mazatlán hurricane
1943 Mazatlán hurricane has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. OhHaiMark (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
TFA
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you today for Tropical Storm Hanna (2002), from 2008, in collaboration. Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Juliancolton! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
"Typhoon Katrina" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Typhoon Katrina has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § Typhoon Katrina until a consensus is reached. ZZZ'S 23:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Juliancolton! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |