Jump to content

User talk:Mdann52/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Interwiki citing between German and English

Hi Matt, I asked a question about interwiki citing between two languages, and you generously replied that you could help. The entry that needs to link wiki site of Gökce Yurdakul to a reference in the wiki site of Sila Sahin (in the German wiki site, the English is not identical). In Sila Sahin's German wiki site, Gökce Yurdakul's name appears "red" as I couldn't do the link. The reviewer (HBot, I think the name) of this wiki site wanted me to fix this problem. I could do the English-English links but not the German-English links. Thank you for your help. DSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversityandsocialconflict (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diversityandsocialconflict: thanks - that makes it a bit clearer as to what I need to advise. To link across Wikipedia sites, you just need to prefix the link with ":xx:", xx being the language code at the start of the URL. For example, to link to "Gökce Yurdakul" on the German Wikipedia, the code is [[:de:Gökce Yurdakul]], producing de:Gökce Yurdakul. Mdann52 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

You don't know me, but I saw your good comments on the Josh Duggar talk page regarding the section title. But I am writing to ask you a question. I see that the editor Winkelvi has made an enormous number of edits to the Duggar talk page – by a quick count, about 60 in just two hours today. He has done the same thing in numerous other articles, regularly changing what many other editors have contributed, including me. He even reported me (and a number of other editors) for edit-warring (with him). Is there some policy regarding an editor making a huge number of edits in articles in a very short period of time, particulary when they change content added by others? Just wondering because the editor seems to essentially be trying to take control of a lot of articles he edits. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just wanted to make you aware that I took my concerns to an administrator because the onslaught of edits at the Duggar article were not stopping. I figured you were probably busy. I did let that administrator know that I had originally asked another editor for input. Have a good evening. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lootbrewed: apologies I was busy, real life often throws suprises at me. While there is explicitly no policy against this, WP:DISRUPT may apply if they are using the changes in order to sneak through changes opposed by others. Depending on what changes he is making, it may also fall under WP:TE if he is completely changing the meaning of the sentence. Mdann52 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That isn't even close to what was happening, Mdann. It was clean-up, nothing more. If you're interested, look at my edits there yesterday. Lootbrewed has a little more than 200 edits and is new to the project, not knowing that numerous c/e type edits done consecutively is not unheard of. I encourage you to actually look at what I did rather than give the other editor fuel for his fire. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: I believed they were asking a question about what happens for someone who made a load of quick-fire edits, as opposed to this particular case. Whether there is anything here that requires action is not for me to decide. Mdann52 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message:Request for help

Hi Mdann52,

Thanks for responding to my request for help. My comments below refer to the Wiki New Beacon School article, controversy section. The section follows a long history of the school writing misleading statements attempting to conceal the fact that a child was abused at the school. This resulted in the Charities Commission advising the School to apologise, as the cover up was damaging to the victim. The Press covered the story and school apologised. But it continues its damaging behaviour on Wikipedia by selecting quotes and using biased language. The school has a financial and reputational interest in behaving in this way. It has now semi protected the site against editing. FYI I my comments are given below.

The section refers to the alleged cover up of sexual abuse of a boy at the school. The site has now been semi protected by the school and the headmaster. Mike Piercy apparently wrote the controversy section. The section is biased in that it is stated that the Seveonaoks Chronicle claims....... The word claims should be replaced with the word reported. The Newspaper made no claims, merely reported the proven facts. The word "claims" is a piece of blatant spin used by the author to minimise public perception of the schools behaviour in response to the award of by Criminial Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of sexual abuse of one of its pupils.

The word claimed is also used in respect of the perpetrator having been previously suspended. Again, the newspaper made no claims. It reported the facts. The words claimed should be changed to the word reported.

In the first sentence, the same "spin" technique is is used....."....a former pupil who claimed...." The use of the word claim implies doubt. The school has written to the child saying that did not doubt his testimony, but is saying another thing publicly. The sentence should be changed to "....a former pupil disclosed".

The page should not be an advertisement and public relations platform for the New Beacon School. It should be open to editing. Otherwise Wiki is being used by the school to protect its reputation in the very serious matter of the sexual abuse of children.


In 2015, The Daily Telegraph online reported that a Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Award had been made in January 2013 in respect of the sexual abuse of a pupil at New Beacon School by a former teacher who was convicted of sexual offences of other children.[1]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrienuk (talk • contribs)

I've reworded the article to be more neutral and a compromise between the two. While the article shouldn't be an advert, it should also not be unduly negative. Mdann52 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3447897/Music-teacher-at-prep-school-jailed-for-sexual-abuse-of-boys.html Telegraph. Accessed 5 May 2015

John Scott (organist)

You've twice added the name "Douglas" to the late John Scott's father's name, citing an OTRS ticket (I've always wanted to volunteer for OTRS, never got around to looking into it). That addition has been twice reverted by Patrug and I think for good reason--the source for that line as it stands doesn't mention the name "Douglas". While I'm loath to removing information if it is indeed accurate, I would think we'd need a public, verifiable reliable source that could be examined before we can justify adding that information if we are to abide by the strictures of WP:BLP, especially. Could you shed some light on what in that ticket justifies that addition? JackTheVicar (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@JackTheVicar: if you want to volenteer for OTRS - feel free :) new volenteers are always useful (although I don't expect you to deal with as much of the stuff I do :P). The ticket is from a family member, citing that this is actually his grandfather. Unfortunately, this appears to have been incorrectly printed in a release sent to them, and this is the name cited in the source. They are trying to sort this out, but have contacted us and asked us to update the relevent information (disclaimer - they have asked me to pass all details on about this, so this isn't violating any privacy requirements IMO, however this is still my interpretation of the email). Mdann52 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a specific policy that an OTRS ticket source trumps WP:V and WP:RS in this case? I'm not familiar with one that I've come across, so I defer to your judgment/knowledge. If there is, I'd mention it to Patrug and maybe put a note on the article's talk page to clarify the addition. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@JackTheVicar: Other than WP:IAR, there is not a policy per-say, however it seems common sense. I've done this in a similar situation before - a faulty press release was put out, and the people in question contacted us to amend the article while it was sorted out (which was actually done while I was discussing it with someone). While there is not a policy in this case, the fact that all the sources show the wrong name I feel shows they're sources are far from reliable. Mdann52 (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
perhaps we ought to write one. It seemed reasonable to me that OTRS fact/source should prevail, especially with a BLP, but even I was hesitant. After receiving your reply yesterday, i decided not to wait fir a new source or correction of the old and both reincluded it in the article and reached out to explain it to the other contributor, Patrug. I might run through a few databases to see if there's a public genealogy or vital record to use to augment it. Thanks for your patience and for discussing this. I appreciate the learning opportunity. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
coincidentally, Charles01 just added some sources to it. Situation alleviated. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In cases where the sources conflict with WP:THETRUTH, or the truth according to OTRS as the case here seems to be, I like to use weasel words: "...and Douglas Gavin Scott[1] (called Gavin Scott in some sources[2][3]) ..." or somesuch.

References

  1. ^ Personal communication, see WP:OTRS
  2. ^ The first faulty-yet-WP:RS cite
  3. ^ Another faulty WP:SOURCE.

Age-of-the-BLP disputes are similar, something like "...born in 1944 (or 1955 in some sources)..." 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:Afc_comment

Since your talkpage-information clearly states, and I quote:

  • Please note I... reply immediately, as I... have stuff... [to] do [for you]...; I'm... chained to Wikipedia 24/7..."[1]

Well in that case....  ;-)     Here is something that you can peek at, if you like. I was unable to insert a history-link into an afc-comment, because the template gave me an error, and a misleading errmsg at that ("no comment specified"). If you think I may have misrepresented your actual edit-notice, or if you are otherwise occupied, no problem, somebody will fix it at some point. But while I was here, figured I would joggle your elbow, in case it was low-hanging fruit. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note there about this, but I don't think I can really do anything about this... Mdann52 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor

I hope you have not finished, because it does not work any more. Example at Draft talk:Robert Bloom (2) Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 9 - I am fixing these. Thanks for reporting this, I'll take a look to see why the legacy code is not working (I suspect it's because one of my assumptions while merging was wrong...) Mdann52 (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
More power to your elbow. The merge is an excellent idea and long overdue. Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: This page uses slightly odd code that shouldn't of worked really with the old template (taking a quick look). It's annoying because this is why I'm having to do this semi-automatically or even manually, but hey ho. Hopefully this will all be fixed by the end of the week, only another 7000 or so to go :P Mdann52 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A suggestion, if one be needed, that for a single use the "U" prefix be omitted, and only added as U2, U3 etc for multiple uses. All templates are odd because of the bizarre and arcane tempting language, a language designed to befuddle even the best programmer.
Would you mind reverting the template to the unmerged state while you ponder the issue, or has work gone too far for that? Be aware any other editor might do that, of course. Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I'm trying to not break the existing uses either, however I will add this in as an option later. I'm waiting for my trial to be signed off right now, so I'll take a look at the breaking issue. Note, however, that reverting this will break those I've already converted, so we can't really win either way :( Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Draft talk:Robert Bloom (2), it now appears to be at least half working, that will probably be the best it can be until my bot comes across it later on. Mdann52 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Good answer Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I have another single-user example if you need it at Talk:Anglian Home Improvements. Thanks for working on this! --Drm310 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drm310: I'm aware of this - however, it's not worth going through and changing it all over just for me to go through and fix it shortly, I hope you'll agree. In the meantime, it still appears fully functional, so this bodge should do. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

fields needed per ToU

Hello Mdann52, you requested that folks ping you, if they had suggestions for the template, to make it easier for beginners. I suggest something like this:

  • {{Connected_contributor | "my_employer_is" = SPECIFIC_CORPORATION_GOES_HERE | "my_client_is" = SPECIFIC_ENTITY_GOES_HERE | "comment_about_nature_of_the_conflict_of_interest" = IS_RELATIONSHIP_FINANCIAL_OR_ACQUIANTANCE_OR_OTHER }}

By default, unless the "my_username_is"= and the "my_link_is"= fields are specified and filled with valid wikilinks, the username of the currently-editing person (the one saving the connected-contributor-template to a talkpage in the usual case), and also the wikilink to their userpage, ought to be automagically included by default. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to make a new general field in here - saying that, I think the template is clear enough at the minute (and the otherlinks accepts any text too). Of course, if enough people think this is useful and needed, I will add it in still, this just seems a bit cumbersome to me... Mdann52 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the template is clear enough to me personally as well, but then, I found your usertalk by way of not one, but two separate noticeboard discussions, where people felt the template in particular (and the helpdocs in general) could be made considerably more crystal clear, so to speak. How many times have you seen people with usernames like "User:TheCorporationWhereImWorkingAsAnEmployee" and get procedurally-blocked? Yet, we don't have a big warning-sign when you register, that says in unmistakeably crystal-clear fashion, DO NOT USE YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME AS YOUR USERNAME... and so we keep having problems. My suggestions are along the same lines: we need a crystal-clear template, which makes it 100% unmistakeably apparent, that if you are here to edit on behalf of your employer, or if you are here to edit on behalf of a client of your PR firm, that you must disclose per ToU the name of the client, the name of the PR firm (if applicable), and the nature of the relationship (aka "I work at TheTopicOfTheArticle" or sometimes "I work at ThePrFirm hired by TheTopicOfTheArticle"). I realize that template-syntax adjustment are probably necessary-yet-insufficient, to accomplish the overall goal, of making fewer people get a needlessly-harsh reception here on the 'pedia during their first few edits, but since you asked I figured I would give some advice.  ;-)     p.s. Agree about the cumbersome-ness assessment, but sometimes, COBOL syntax is just what the doctor ordered. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I get your point entirely, but I don't see how this will seek to achieve what you want. In theory, this template should only be used for declared COI's (IMO), not suspected ones. If the COI is declared, then we almost certainly know the information, and that can be linked to with using a diff in the otherlinks bit (as well as details). I agree that we need better education sooner, and I think modifying the signup page would be a good start. However, I don't see how this template will help with that, and personally, I feel a more personalised approach to getting a declaration is needed - and we need to take into account that not every new user will know how to fill this out, hence why a template is not the best way of doing this. Of course, if anyone can come up with a new signup page, I'm all for that and I'll happily send it off to the devs to look at.
On the topic of documentation, I am going to try and rewrite this - however, I'd rather do this once, then having to redo this every few minutes as I add in a new feature, but this is on my todo list
Thanks for your suggestions - however, I hope you can see where my point of view is coming from on this, and why I would like to see more agreement before moving towards this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed with all points, but especially the one about the template-arglist not being a silver bullet. I would request that you make the helpdocs as clear as you can, however, and explicitly say "if you are tagging someone you suspect of having COI do this..." and also "if you are editing wikipedia about your employer or your PR client do this..." and the more generic "if there are articles about you/yourBand/yourKinfolk/yourEmployer/yourProducts/etc here on wikipedia then do this..." type of thing. Anyways, appreciate you listening, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to pop in and leave a similar suggestion to what 75.108.94.227 was making. My thoughts on this was to have a template that a PE could use to easily comply with the ToU on either their user page or on the article talk page, as either is acceptable. I think Mdann52's idea is workable though, especially with some updates to the template docs and to WP:PCD explaining how the disclosure should be done and how to use the connected contributor template on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • VisualEditor will now automatically create a link when you type in or paste an ISBN, PMID, or RFC. [2][3]
  • The link editor in VisualEditor is now a bit wider. It's now the same width as the automatic citation tool. [4]
  • VisualEditor gadget authors can no longer use the backwards-compatibility module ext.visualEditor.viewPageTarget.init. Use ext.visualEditor.desktopArticleTarget.init instead. [5]
  • Gadget writers can now use mediawiki.ForeignApi to communicate between different Wikimedia wikis. [6]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 1. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 3 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 1 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The Wikidata API will be updated with breaking changes. This will probably happen on September 9. [7]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

why u delete CATC information

Hi, i wanna know why u delete CATC informations? they were wrong? i exactly do ur opinion. 860ali (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@860ali: it was unsourced, and the tone and content was not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Mdann52 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1- How can I translate a page for wiki? my source was fawiki and i studied in CATC. I know the fawiki is right for this article. i cant refer to fawiki or Iran's CATC official site?
2- its tone did not neutral point of view?

151.243.253.83 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot cite another Wikipedia article, you need an external source. The tone on the removed text did not comply with WP:NPOV. Mdann52 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for ur reply. i used external link and maybe i should reuse it for each statement. may i know exactly which statement did not comply with WP:NPOV?
before u remove something due to not satisfied citation u should ask me for citation[1] :) 860ali (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Tagging_a_sentence.2C_section.2C_or_article
You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, as I said before. You need to include external sources instead. Mdann52 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech Ambassador Invite

W T A You are invited to participate in WikiProject Tech Ambassadors, a project dedicated to promoting the Tech Ambassadors Program here on Wikipedia.
If you would like to join, visit the members page. You might also consider subscribing to the mailing list. samtar(leave me a message) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Can you please take a look at a concern I have at St. Paul's School. On August 20, an editor named Fred_Bauder created a section called "Socialization". All the content in the section was contributed by that one editor and is derived completely from one book written by an alumnus of the school named Shamus Khan. When I first saw and read the section, it struck me as very inappropriate to devote an entire section to the opinions of one man written in one book, regardless of whether he attended the school or not. Also very concerning is the fact that some of the content is even written in Wikipedia's voice.

I think it's very relevant to note that the editor and I were having a discussion about an unrelated matter on the talk page, and I made the comment to him that "my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included" in the article. His response really surprised me and seems to explain his motivation for adding the socialization content (which he had already done over a week earlier). His reply to me was, "My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case." (As you probably know from the news, Owen Labrie is the recent St. Paul's graduate who was just convicted on rape charges.)

My initial hunch was to either remove the entire section, or to just leave a sentence or two about how an alum wrote a book about the school and merge it into an existing section. But I decided to do nothing and seek the opinion of someone who seems to be a very good, experienced editor. That's why I'm writing. Perhaps I'm way off base on this. Or maybe I'm right on the money. I don't know. But I would value your opinion or any other experienced editor(s) you might want to confer with about this. I will support whatever action you or other editors you consult with deem appropriate. Thanks for your time. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the appropriateness of that particular content, I just read the entire article to see if there's any other content that perhaps should also be removed. In my opinion, there is an enormous amount of other existing content that doesn't belong, and sounds like it was written either by St. Paul's students/alumni or the school's marketing people. And a lot of it, by the way, is also unsourced. There's a large amount of clearly non-encylopedic information about routine activities, programs, and facilities, which, besides being non-enyclopedic, is essentially original research. For example, there's an entire lengthy section detailing each and every dormitory, and another detailed section devoted solely to the "Advanced Studies Program", which I feel should be limited to just a sentence and included in an "Academics" or similar section (which doesn't exist). I think you'll see exactly what I'm talking about regarding all the non-encylopedic content if you look at these sections: "Dormitories", "Daily life", "Religion", "Traditions", and "Advanced Studies Program". As you can see, this would be a massive cleanup project since it involves a high percentage of the article's total content. Please help. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Mdann, I'm not sure if you forgot about my above concerns or if you're just not interested in looking into them, which I certainly would understand. You're the only person from whom I've asked for help on this matter. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Update. I'm going to present my concerns to another editor who I see is very involved with articles about schools. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi. The Counter Vandalism Unit is still very much an active project and users regularly ask for training. Please take a moment to update your trainer details at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Instructors. If you are currently unable or no longer interested in being a trainer, either move your details to the list of inactive trainers or remove them entirely. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

LNYDP

Hi, I have reverted your good faith edit to the London New Year's Day Parade article to my previous version. Your edit deleted useful historical images, reintroduced past tense details on the routes, American format dates and spam links that were not really pertient to the article, all of which were wanted by JosephBone (AKA: indefe banned User:LNYDP). Richard Harvey (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Harvey: tone could still do with work in places IMO, but sure. Mdann52 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, agreed! But I didn't want to be too harsh at that time, just to get it looking informative and encyclopaedic with images, without the obvious advertising style wording to promote the next event. Note that User:Joseph Bone has just had his name changed to User:ChiswickMan12345, so may well come back and change things again as yhough a new editor. My understanding us that he works for the Company who organise the event, IE: Destination Events Ltd, so there js an element of COI. Hopefully your request for full PP will stop him. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

template#3, per WP:CHOICE

Hello again Mdann, if you get tired of hearing my seemingly-constant-nowadays template-begging, please just let me know, I won't be offended.  :-)     If you feel like peeking, here is a namespace-detection-failure, related to a tag that works okay in mainspace but fails in draftspace. Template_talk:COI#tagging_draftspace_article 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are now a template editor

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

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

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-37

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can now mention up to 50 users in a post and they will get a notification. Previously you could notify up to 20 users. [8]
  • A new version of the Wikidata Toolkit has been released. It now has Wikibase API support. [9]
  • You can now use Wikidata to find all good or featured articles in a Wikipedia version. [10]

Problems

  • There was a problem with Tool Labs due to kernel issues. This has been fixed. [11]
  • The Content Translation tool published some pages with the same reference repeated several times. This has been fixed. [12][13]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 8. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 9. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 10 (calendar).
  • The maximum character length when you search for something on the Wikimedia wikis is now 300 characters. [14]
  • The notifications list has been split into two lists. As a first step, notifications about messages on your user talk page will be placed in the second list. Feedback is requested at the Echo talk page. [15][16]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 8 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the Wikitech ambassadors mailing list. The list is for Wikimedians interested in spreading information about Wikimedia technology news. See how to join.

Future changes

  • The Wikimedia mailing lists will be moved to a new server and the software will be upgraded. This will happen on September 9 at 14:00 (UTC). The mailing lists will not be working during the move. It can take up to four hours. [17]
  • Wikidata will soon be able to store measurements, such as a mountain's height or the distance between two places. [18][19]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the continual deletion of the valuable "Features Comparison Table" on the Roku?

The Roku page has had a super valuable table comparing the features of each model in each generation. This is an incredibly valuable resource, built up over many years. I was using it to find a used model that had my desired feature, when it vanished for no apparent reason. Please reinstate this table. Several other members did so, and each time you repeatedly deleted it. Why? It is not advertising, nor is it inaccurate. If it were inaccurate, it would have been corrected long ago by people who own those models. "Sources" is just a red herring. Anybody with that particular model can look at it to verify the features. There is no official "source" for this information other than the group effort of Wikipedians. Thanks. Ricara (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, if there is no source, it should not be on Wikipedia - see WP:V. Additionally, as this is not officially sourced, it can be seen as original research. Mdann52 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Buffalo Bulls football

Hello, I have re-moved Buffalo Bulls (American football) back to Buffalo Bulls football. There is currently not another page that would be linked to Buffalo Bulls football, and it is the standard naming procedure for college football and WP:Commonname. Feel free to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football if you have any concerns.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the technical assistance. I really appreciate it. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mdann52. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
Message added 08:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-38

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can now use the Wikidata query service. [20]
  • Belarusian-Taraškievica Wikipedia was moved from be-x-old.wikipedia.org to be-tarask.wikipedia.org. This caused some issues, but most of them were resolved. [21]
  • Language preferences might not be changed immediately when you adjust them. Language selection might work slower. Please report any problems. [22][23]

Problems

  • There was a problem when editing International Standard Book Numbers in Visual Editor. This has now been fixed. [24]
  • The Wikimedia mailing lists should have been upgraded on September 9. It didn't work as planned and will now happen later. [25]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 17 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 15 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • ContentTranslation will show more data on the Special:ContentTranslationStats page. For example, it will show translation trends and information about deleted translations. [26]
  • The first version of the translation suggestions feature will be deployed soon. [27]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is now an experimental Wikimedia maps service. You can give feedback here. [28][29]
  • Last week a few issues with UploadWizard were fixed. Before this was done, UploadWizard would stop you from uploading your files if something went wrong. [30][31][32][33]
  • More Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Previously they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [34]
  • The VisualEditor welcome dialogue has been changed. The intention is to make it more helpful for new users. [35]

Problems

  • Wikimedia Labs' HTTPS certificate expired for most of Tuesday 15 September. To reach Wikimedia Labs and Tool Labs securely you had to ignore your browser's security error message. There was no risk to data security during this time. [36]
  • Last week the notification system was split into two parts. This was temporarily undone because of a bug and performance concerns. It will return to two parts this week. [37][38]
  • UploadWizard couldn't upload files larger than 5 MB when using chunked uploads. This has now been fixed. [39]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 23. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 24 (calendar).
  • The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [40]
  • You can now choose whether to extend a link or not when editing one in VisualEditor. This means it is easier to choose how much of what you type before and after the link is part of it. [41]
  • Wikibooks can now use data from Wikidata. [42]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 20:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdann52/Archive_24&oldid=1038111777"