Jump to content

User talk:Keith D/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 75

Please check all new refs and Further reading section - is this correctly done? Thanks as usual. T.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2019

Delivered May 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

  • Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
  • The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
  • They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

  • Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
  • The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
  • Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   01:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please check new refs - thanks as always T.

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article

Hello,

As a recent contributor to the article, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

  • 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 so will 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.

Miscellaneous


16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Article about Boundless Immigration

Hello User:Keith_D, I am reaching out to you and several other experienced editors with a history of editing immigration topics. I would like to ask for your help with a new article that I and others have been working on: Draft:Boundless Immigration. I am in a fully disclosed COI position on the article and do not wish to get unduly involved in editing it further or, of course, in the decision about whether it should be moved from draft status to a live article. The draft has an unusual history. As far as I can tell, the editor who declined it in December 2018 (User:JC7V7DC5768) was relatively new to editing and was subsequently blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons. User:Robert McClenon declined the article in April 2018, and has stated in several places that he does not get involved in new article decisions once he has weighed in. The third editor to work on it, User:Libracarol, improved it and was in favor of advancing the article before it was declined by the now-banned editor. But Libracarol has done no editing since February 2019 and has not responded to notes left on his/her talk page. Meanwhile, the article (still in draft form) has nearly 30 solid references, which suggests that the topic is notable. Would you be willing to take a look at it and offer an opinion? Others who declined it did not have extensive immigration article editing histories, and that seems to be an important factor here. Many thanks in advance for considering my request! Messier6 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Kingston upon Hull

Portal:Kingston upon Hull, 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:Kingston upon Hull and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Kingston upon Hull 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing/blocking conflict

Good afternoon. In the past few days I've witnessed a series of edits on the article Willem van der Haegen and I'm deeply concerned about the way it has come down. I saw the Frid.antonia-arlon - the one who eventually got blocked - attempting to improve the article based on information discovered in genealogical research by genealogist Claeys and archive documentation; however, these attempts were contested by user C Tomás who from the first moment showed hostility towards any instance of edit on the aforementioned article, citing a sypposed lack of sources. Another user Matheus2740 also came by to edit, and both the latter and user frid.antonia managed to add several more sources, in contrast to the original two that were in the notes prior to these editing conflicts.

In the end, user Cristiano Tomás reported them bod and got them blocked. By the way things developed, I'm under the impression that it is this user's intention to have the monopoly over the edits to this article, due to the hostility they have shown so far - such attitude and effort to prevent anyone other than himself to make any changes to the article also contradicts his statement on the blocking request that the page itself is "such a not significant article". Why such repetitive animosity on his part, then?

What I'm trying to say here, is that user Cristiano Tomás has gone against what researching/editing an article is supposed to be for  - that is, to gain a broader, greater knowledge on certain subject - and has turned the issue into a personal one.

Most shocking, though, is the fact that the decision to block both users was just taken upon request from C Tomás to do so, with no further deliberation, no further discussion, and without even letting the other involved parties know about such request so as to give them the opportunity to defend themselves. Is that how we want to build a positive, constructive enviromnent?

On the other hand, I find it curious that the "narrative" of the article has been contested in previous occasions in the article's talk page (2013 in English wiki, 2014 in the Portuguese wiki) and that in both times they were just ignored. In fact, both users (Frid.antonia and Matheus) attempted to explain their points on the English talk page, but their interventions were, again, ignored.

I don't have an account on here but, in case I am to be accused of being what they call a sockpuppet, I want to say that I'm a, let's say, occasional contributor to the project, from time to time. Some of my edits include this, and this. Yet, it does worry me that I might be blocked as well for coming to the defence of the other party. Nevertheless, I thank you for your kind attention to this message.

Greetings, --190.119.190.107 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

PS. This message was originally intended for Bearen Hunter, who was overseeing the issue, but as I was writing it, he blocked my desktop IP in an astounding show of good faith. Also, for the sake of transparency: I'm the one who commented on the blocking request page. Anyway, thanka for your attention.

Bolognese dialect () listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bolognese dialect (). Since you had some involvement with the Bolognese dialect () redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

NOMIS2011 1000 transclusions

Hi Keith, I hope you're well. I don't have a lot of time for editing at the moment, but I've been keeping an occasional eye on the transclusion count for the NOMIS2011 template. I've just given it a little push and we are now at 1000 articles! I know many of these additions are yours and wanted to thank you for your hard work. All the best. TiB chat 16:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2019

Delivered June 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is the one called Park Hall which is about the "affluent area (in the UK) ....". Please check new refs if you can. Thanks from T and 02:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please check this page's citations. Thanks as always T.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Technical news

  • 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.

Miscellaneous


Please check new refs numbers 39 and 44 - they are both from old newspaper articles. Thanks again T.

Middlesbrough

Hi Keith - just make you aware that Middlesbrough is not in any county (North Yorkshire).

Middlesbrough as a unitary authority, in the Tees Valley City Region, Teesside area and part of the North-East.

Middlesbrough is only part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial purpose so if their was a royal visit for example the North Yorkshire Lord Lieutenant would be present.

Culturally, economically and geographically we moved north 30 mile in 1974 whether people agree with that or not.

I had this discussion with our recently appointment mayor. JM95 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Keith - could you please check refs for the above page. Thanks as always T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Middlesbrough

Hi Keith. I am a regular known to you but trying to take a voluntary wikibreak for all sorts of very good reasons. Nevertheless, I wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on Middlesbrough and for putting things right here. I'm going to try and go away now. Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - nay chance of checking new refs for the above page? Thanks again - you are great! T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please check if U can. Thanks from T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.110.138 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Accessdate v. Access-date

Hi Keith, in your 23:07 script-assisted edit to Diana Wallis (can't get a diff - on phone) you changed field names from "access-date" to "accessdate" and same for "archive-date", but the documentation at {{cite web}} shows the hyphenated form. Is your script wrongly coded or is that documentation wrong? PamD 05:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Either form can be used - I much prefer the unhyphenated version as it does not wrap in the edit window and the spellchecker underlines it so I can quickly spot it. It is not part of the script but done manually before I run the script. It does say "Alias: accessdate" in the documentation for {{cite web}} in the "URL" section. Keith D (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please check a few new refs on the above page - I found it difficult. Thanks as always T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D9A2:5501:15DD:118B:97C6:39A7 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Warwickshire tags on video games pages

Hello, you have added WikiProject Warwickshire tags to a group video games pages - there doesn't seem to be any obvious relationship to warrant this. (Hohum @) 02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The link is Codemasters that is based in Southam, the video games are produced by them. Probably someone added the Warwickshire link to the categories since my last run though them. Keith D (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems like a bit of a stretch to tag every game developed or published by them with regional WikiProjects. (Hohum @) 13:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A new ref - please check if it is OK Thanks again T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.32.82.245 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • 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.

Miscellaneous


21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2019

Delivered July 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Page Not Live On Google

Wiki article not live on Google why Afrowriter (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You are going to explain what you mean here as I have no idea what that means or applies to. Keith D (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please check latest refs for this page. Very tricky! Thanks from T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.32.82.245 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

and also please

new refs

Thanks from T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.32.82.245 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

unraveling

Keith, you've been here long enough to know to avoid WP:SYNTH, even when it's on a topic you feel strongly about. Don't do that again. DS (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but unsure what you are referring to. Keith D (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops, didn't look at the history closely enough - the inappropriate edit in question was by the person just before you. Sorry. DS (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on two recent edits

I noticed some inconsistent behavior with a new editor on two articles, List of Pagans and List of Neopagan movements, namely the addition of external wiki links (with questionnable notability as well) in lists that are otherwise only comprised of on wiki article links. I reverted a couple of the changes and left an explanation on the editor's Talk page that was not answered, though in the midst of this it appears you went in and fixed the external links themselves. I am reaching out to you here as the list pages themselves always seem to point to internal Wikipedia articles, such as on those of the List of list of lists, and not to external links. I wanted to get your input on this before I edit these further. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I was fixing errors in the Category:CS1 errors: dates without really thinking about the changes themselves, unless it was obvious vandalism. Thinking about it now you have pointed it out the entry on the list page is red-linked so should probably be deleted until an article is available to link to. Though I also made the same correction twice to Draft:Asociația ROPAGANISM which the user is working on which is probably the article that they are thinking of linking to. The list pages should really have a reference attached to every entry on them to indicate that the person is involved in the subject of the list. Keith D (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Keith D, Thanks for the explanation. I have already had a few reverts and explanations that went unanswered and want to avoid a back and forth. What do you suggest to be the best way to remove those red linked items until they have something to point to and avoid that rollback sparring? --- FULBERT (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That is a difficult one if the user is not responding to comments on their talk page. I would try another comment on their talk page suggesting that they wait until the article they are working on is in main space and inviting them to respond. Give it a couple of days and if no response then remove the red-linked item and keep fingers crossed they do not restore it. If they do then may have to protect the page to force them in to a response. Keith D (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

NHLE

Hi Keith, I don't understand the template expansion limit on the list pages, that you raised a concern about at BOTREQ. What would happen, and what would be needed to prevent it from happening. The bot is coded and ready once the TfD closes but not sure what it will run into on this. Thanks. -- GreenC 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The list pages have numerous calls to the {{NHLE}} template and converting {{IoE}} will add to this number. Some pages already hit the template expansion limit so the templates cannot be used on every call. I was thinking that the {{NHLE}} template could be reverted back to a straight wrapper to {{cite web}} rather than use #invoke:Template wrapper which probably adds to the expansion size. This may not be the case but someone who knows about how template expansion operates may be able to point out if this is the case. Keith D (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
If the bot does conversions on a page with a lot of instances, and this problem is triggered, will it break the page (ie. cause red errors etc) or would it just not permit a save? -- GreenC 17:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Will have to pass on that one. It normally causes rendering problems so I guess that it must save the page, though I think it gives a warning message when trying to save. Help:Template#Template limits may give details. Keith D (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ben Bradley (politician)

Wanted to check this because you added it back a few days ago. A member of the public giving their own analysis of an MP's parking expenses ("2018-2019 expenses is where Ben Bradley really takes advantage of the uncapped budget of travel...") is inappropriate for Wikipedia, even if the writer thinks it's hypocritical or whatever's going on here, right? You'd expect at least a local paper to cover this if it was unusual. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I added it back as seemed like a large unexplained deletion at the time without looking too closely at the content. This would have to be covered in some reliable source rather than just a member of the public doing it. It looks like someone has put together a string of referenced facts and jumping to a conclusion that is unreferenced. It is also too prominent in the article and if present should be near the foot rather than the first section of the article. Keith D (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

very confused

so if something is factually correct how is it not allowed to be added? There can be many instances where this is applicable. For example, had the Titantic not hit the iceberg it would not have sank. Many pages contain opinion like were the moon landings faked or 9/11 conspiracies. However, I will take note and not post any more comments about Wayne Mardle. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triggerrabbit (talkcontribs) 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is backed-up by a reliable source and is relevant to an article. Keith D (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added new refs - please check if you are able and thanks from T.

Orphaned non-free image File:Hull City Crest 2019.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hull City Crest 2019.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2019

Delivered August 2019 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.


Many new citations please check if u can. I hope this is OK thanks again from T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusing content on Leicestershire settlements page

Hi Keith - I have left what I think is an explanation on the talk page. Regards, --The Equalizer (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check new refs on this Northern UK page Thanks from T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talkcontribs) 13:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Turkish football transfers summer 2019

Thank you for help mate but I'll just in the middle of a new edit and I lost data. Ok, time for stop today. Lol. Isik (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Many new difficult refs. Please please chec. always appreciated. From T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added many new newspaper refs - please check if you can. Thanks again T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.248.139 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Unprotecting St Columb's Cathedral

Hi Keith – would you consider unprotecting St Columb's Cathedral? It seems like whatever disruption there might be surrounding the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute can probably be handled through normal editing processes or PC1 at the most. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for note. It looks like I should have set a time limit on the protection as it is nearly 2 years since the IP edit-war on this. I will unprotect and see what happens. Keith D (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Conifer (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PMC warnings

Thanks for fixing these references.[51] I generated them on the VisualEditor so I am surprised that PMC numbers don't get inserted properly. Any idea how this can be fixed? JFW | T@lk 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you also some get errors where you end up with PMCPMCnnnnn. I guess the best place to raise it is WP:VE as it is the editor that is inserting the reference. (There is a link "Report a problem with VisualEditor" at top right of that page). Keith D (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Woodlands Academy

Thanks for your comment about my edit of the page on Woodlands Academy. The grammar point is agreed - it should have read 'additionally'. You comment that my point about the budget deficit was not referenced. True - but I write as a Governor of the now closed Woodlands Academy - and the board minutes show a projected deficit of some £500000 in the year before closure. Academies are not allowed by law to operate on a budget deficit basis.

And another point of clarification - not that I know how do deal with it on Wikipedia. There never was a 'merger' of the two schools. Woodlands just closed and Tile Hill Woods girls academy agreed to take boys from Woodlands who wanted to go there. The terms 'merger' is the creation of lazy journalists who couldn't be bothered to follow the full story - and I know because I wrote to the Coventry Telegraph to try to get them to take an interest in the issue and was ignored.

As a newby to Wikipedia you might have ideas and suggestions as to how to correct the main article ?

Regard

David

Davidknibb (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that without reliable sources we cannot change the page. If sources use the term merger then we have to report that. Unless you have sources that say otherwise. Keith D (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Archive 65Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 75