This page is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2019. 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.
Welcome to the one hundredth and twenty ninth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,430 last month to 14,488 on 5 January 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 148 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,138 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy New Year
It is the start of another year so to wish all members a Happy New Year.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered January 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.
20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
what to do about BMK's accusations against me
Hello
Hello there, it's Nahom
Now yes, at
Talk:Caucasian race I did say that one of your arguments was bad due to it being a similar reason why the name of the page should change, namely it being a modern term while the article appears to be about the historical classification.
User:Beyond My Ken accused me of insulting editors on that page, something he/she does all the time, accusing people of things with no explanation of where they get it from or what proof they have of these supposed evil motives, as was done on their talk page where they call me a racist.
Yes the section at the talk page for Caucasian race where I proposed naming it "white race" could be a mistake, and had BMK have said, "it looks like you're being racist by doing this." rather than assuming that it's obvious, perhaps I wouldn't have had the upset reactions I do towards him/her.
BMK has made it clear that he/she doesn't want me to interact with him/her despite him/her replying to various posts of mine at
Talk:Caucasian race with some admittedly valid points in some cases.
What should I do going forward should BMK accuse me of extream things in the future?
I don't want to have to tag him with the AGF thing because that is over-used, even though we should assume good faith, as I do with him/her and everybody, even when I disagree with them.
Also, while I got you, is it wrong that I am asking for more non-American perspectives on the discussion at
Talk:Caucasian race so that more people from a position similar to mine in terms of not speaking American English can weigh in?
thanks.
Nahom
23.151.192.180 (
talk)
03:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nahom. I find it's best to let go of these things. It's easy to get offended online but, whether the offence was intended or not, it's more productive to focus on the substance of an argument rather than the person making it. But if you really want to take it further, concerns with user conduct are usually discussed first at
WP:ANI.
There's nothing wrong with calling for a broader range of perspectives but I'm not American and neither are many of the other editors who have commented. Regardless, I don't think this is an North American usage vs. other usage. I'll comment further on the article talk page. –
Joe (
talk)
08:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Joe.
I'm just so tired of being labeled thigns by this user. I admit I can be a bit crude at times yes, but it looks like BMK does not assume I mean the best as I assume for them. is an/i's protected status done? I went to go after him during the first accusation on an/i but it was protected.
thanks.
23.151.192.180 (
talk) 12:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you just let Beyond My Ken know maybe to go easy on the whole accusation thing, sexpecially with things like accusing me of insulting editors and of being racist.
At the talk page for Caucasian he's even raising doubts that I was born in Eritrea.
thanks.
23.151.192.180 (
talk)
13:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you should be able to edit it now. ANI has to be protected often because of vandalism, but as a general rule anyone should be able to edit it.
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirtieth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,488 last month to 14,522 on 30 January 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,150 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The February 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered February 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.
Hello
JoBrodie. There's nothing that you, as the creator, can do right now. The discussion will be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor (usually an administrator) who will decide if there is a consensus and if so implement it. It looks like there's a backlog at CfD so it might take a while. In the mean time the category can still be used as normal. –
Joe (
talk)
05:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Overwatch League logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Overwatch League logo.png. 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).
Hi Joe, thank you for clocking my rookie mistake. I've made a new entry in my sandbox. Let me know if there is any further mistakes I have made? Will any article in my user sandbox be renamed upon approval of the subject title
Howardjdavis (
talk)
15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Howardjdavis. No worries, no damage done. You need to be careful about copying text (as
Diannaa has said on your talk page) and you still haven't declared whether you have a
conflict of interest with regard to Hinton, but other than that the new draft looks fine. –
Joe (
talk)
16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Joe Roe.
I appreciate your insight. Peter Hinton is a colleague of mine.
Diannaa The photograph you've mentioned is my photograph which I give freely to Wikipedia. I am not being paid to do this work I just think Peter is a viable candidate for a wikipedia page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Howardjdavis (
talk •
contribs)
Okay, I'll note that on the talk page. We discourage editors from writing about people they know, so your article will need to be checked by an independent reviewer at some stage. –
Joe (
talk)
06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know
P37307. I would have said just restore the redirect, but that's complicated by the fact that
Emir of Wikipedia did a round-robin move around the redirect that was the result of the last AfD. At this point I would say it would have to go back to AfD. It isn't eligible for G4 because it's a wholly different article. –
Joe (
talk)
07:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I make no comment on if it should be kept or deleted. The page had been reviewed and as I saw no obvious BLP violations I made the necessary page swap. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
18:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)
Autopatrolled
Hello, I'm thinking of applying for Autopatrolled but do you think I would be successful? If not, what would you advise I work on? I'd appreciate your guidance. Just as an aside, noticed you read ArcAnth - first person I've met to have done the degree in years
JamesMatthews01 (
talk)
11:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi
JamesMatthews01. You've only created 25 articles and most in the last few days, so I don't think you need autopatrolled. It's not a right that affects your ability to edit in any way. Why do you want it?
Yes! It was a good course. It's rare to be able to study such a broad subject this side of the Atlantic. –
Joe (
talk)
12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well I do intend to continue at the same pace, so at some point I suppose the NPP will begin to get clogged with the biographies -- so far my metier on here -- that I've been creating. It would also be nice as an affirmation of sorts that I'm not completely screwing this up. So would your advice be to keep creating articles and sit tight?
JamesMatthews01 (
talk)
12:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we really try to discourage the idea that it's an affirmation or mark of an established editor. Its only function is managing the NPP queue and you don't have an appreciable effect on that unless you're creating dozens of articles a month over a sustained period. If I were you I'd ignore it: if you create at that rate, somebody else will probably request it for you.
Questions relating to an an unblock on behalf of the arbitration committee
I see that nine days ago you unblocked Couiros22 on behalf of the arbitration committee. I realise that sometimes the committee has to act on the basis of information that cannot be made public, but I am surprised that the committee did not at the least do me the courtesy of telling me that they had decided to overturn my block, even if they decided that there was no need to hear my opinion before doing so. I am not aware of any policy that says that the arbitration committee has to inform anyone whose actions it decides to over-rule, but doing so seems to me in line with the general principles on which we operate, and in line with the spirit of policies regarding administrators. However, granted that the committee has clearly decided that it was neither necessary nor desirable to inform me, let alone consult me, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the following questions for me, by email if necessary to maintain confidentiality.
Another administrator told me that he forwarded to the arbitration committee a copy of the evidence which I emailed on two separate occasions to two different administrators, both of whom agreed with my conclusions. Can you confirm that arbitrators did receive and read that before coming to a decision?
If you did see that evidence, then can you tell me why you disagree with the conclusion I drew from it? I think it is really important for me to know that, because I found the evidence convincing way beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the arbitration committee has decided that my judgement was faulty in coming to that conclusion then I need to know why, in order to avoid making similar mistakes of judgement again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
09:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi
JamesBWatson. We were forwarded your detailed evidence and understood that you were aware that we were considering an appeal, so I believe the policy requirement to consult the blocking admin was fulfilled. I'm sure you can appreciate that we couldn't involve you in the subsequent discussion directly, as would happen in an on-wiki block appeal.
I apologise for not notifying you of the unblock. I was following the normal unblock procedure and assumed you would be watching their talk page, but given the circumstances, you're right, a direct notification would have been courteous. That's on me; the rest of the committee weren't involved in actually implementing our decision.
OK, thanks. For some reason I didn't get a Wikipedia notification of your email, so it's just as well you told me here that you were sending it. I have read your email. I understand everything you say, but I see it as misunderstanding some significant aspects of what I had said, as well as simply not addressing most of the points that I raised. However, I am grateful to you for letting me know your reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty first
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,522 last month to 14,683 on 27 February 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,161 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The March 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered March 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.
Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.
We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to
participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.
We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.
Hi Joe. You unblocked the user apparently as a result of an AC determination that they are not a sockpuppet. However, sockpupetry was not the only reason the user was blocked. I have not been able to find the AC discussion, so I cannot tell whether any consideration was given to these other issues. Please advise. -
Nick Thornetalk00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Nick. It was a private appeal. We're aware that there were other conduct issues but as the block was initially and primarily for sockpuppetry, and we determined that there was no basis for this, we lifted it (noting that at this point he has been blocked for more than six months). We've warned Couiros22 that our decision is not an endorsement of his disruptive conduct and that he will likely be blocked again if that continues. –
Joe (
talk)
06:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, well it didn't take long. Have a look at their recent contribution
here. They've restarteed their idiosyncratic re-categorisation program, making many edits each day with nary an edit summary in sight and no apparent consensus for the changes. If they have in fact obtained a consensus somewhere then they should be referring to it with a link in the edit summary. Not happy, Jan. Can you please fire a shot across their bows and remind them that the block was also for this sort of behaviour, not just the allegation of sock puppetry. -
Nick Thornetalk04:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@
Nick Thorne: I'd prefer to leave further interactions with Couiros22 to other admins. I'd suggest talking to them about their categorisations and, if that doesn't find a resolution, taking it to
WP:ANI. –
Joe (
talk)
05:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
So you choose to wash you hands of the matter. The editor was blocked both for the sockpupetry, which the Arbcom overturned, but also for long term disruptive editing. Which disruptive editing they have simply continued with since you lifted the block. The editor has steadfastly refused throughout this whole sorry saga to own up to the disruptive editing. I never had an opinion on the sock issues, leaving that to others, admins, to decide. However, I am very upset that you chose to overturn both blocks, when the Arbcom only considered the sock. What should have happened is the terms of the block should have been changed from "Abusing multiple accounts, and long-term disruptive editing" to just "long-term disruptive editing". Until the editor faces up to this issue we will continue to suffer their disruption. -
Nick Thornetalk12:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Like most arbs I try not to get involved in day-to-day conduct disputes because there's always the chance they will end up with ArbCom, and then I would have to recuse as
WP:INVOLVED. There are plenty of other admins that are very experienced in handling this sort of thing at
WP:ANI. –
Joe (
talk)
13:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed the draft article did not have the AFC template, so I added it in. But then I realised that you had inserted the AFC template in
this edit, which seems to have been removed in
this edit. I am not sure what to do at this point, and whether to simply leave it as is or return your original timestamp, etc. --
Caorongjin (
talk)
10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi
Caorongjin. It was only draftified because someone said they would work on it, and they haven't, so I don't think it's appropriate to submit it to AfC. I left an unsubmitted AfC template on the article specifically so it wouldn't hang around in draft indefinitely. Since there haven't been any significant edits in more than six months, I am going to delete it under
WP:CSD#G13. –
Joe (
talk)
12:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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).
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.
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.
First, sorry to be popping around to different arb talk pages so much recently with questions. As I mentioned at the case request, I had originally planned to file an AE case against FeydHuxtable, but they "superseded" it procedure wise with their filing from my understanding. Combine that with me likely being on a very limited schedule today and I'm just trying to get details figured out when I can.
You mention considering a motion for topic-ban, etc. Is that something you arbs can do at the current case request, or does someone need to formally file an ammendment request over at
WP:ARCA, etc. when you all close the request? Normally a violation of the GMO aspersions principle like that would go straight to AE and result in a topic ban, but the only relative certainty I have on procedure given the out of the norm sequence of events is that an AE thread shouldn't be opened while a case request is open. Thanks.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
13:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as the case has been declined without other discussion, I went ahead and filed at AE. Not something I absolutely needed to notify you about, but I figured I’d do so in case the procedure question comes up related to what was declined versus what’s open for request.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response
Kingofaces43. I think that could have been handled equally well by us, at AE, or at ANI. As the other arbs didn't pick up on my suggestion, I agree AE was the best way to go. –
Joe (
talk)
07:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn’t that hard to cite, since a ref was handy just below, and the intrusive tag has now been removed, again. I find those types of tags most disruptive as a reader, don’t you? There were some changes that had to be made, since we now mention Schmidt in the second paragraph, instead of the third. I also found it helpful to create a fourth paragraph from the material already there. Do me a favor and discuss it either here, or on the article Talk page, if you feel further changes are warranted. I’ll watchlist your Talk page and check back. Cheers!
Jusdafax (
talk)
09:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@
Jusdafax: I reverted you because the tag was justified and your edit didn't fix it. I'm not sure what needs to be discussed? I think those tags are very useful when the draw the reader's attention to potentially misleading statements, until they can be fixed. –
Joe (
talk)
09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, we disagree on the use of tags in Wikipedia articles. No matter. My goal here is to to remove that one by answering the tag’s question and improving the article, which I have done. I assume you approve? If not, how can we work to do so, rather than leave it as it was?
Jusdafax (
talk)
09:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@
Jusdafax: Sure, it's fine without the tag now. I think the article still puts too much weight on Schmidt's interpretation (especially his interpretation filtered through journalists), but that's not an easy fix. –
Joe (
talk)
10:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I’ll look into your concerns further, since the article’s subject is of such importance. Best wishes!
Jusdafax (
talk)
10:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty second
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,683 last month to 14,745 on 29 March 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,169 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Recent changes
As some of you will know the script for generating the list of project articles for use with the Recent Changes utility stopped working a couple of years ago so the list was way out of date. The good news is that I have managed to find a convoluted way of creating a new list using
AutoWikiBrowser. The link for using the new list is
Watchlist of recent edits. If you are not interested in talk pages then use
Watchlist of recent article edits or for talk pages only
Watchlist of recent talk page edits.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered April 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.
A highly disparaging comment about you was placed a while ago, and remains in place. See
diff. Just a note to bring this to your attention, in the event that you were not aware of this personal attack. North America100008:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
On
9 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dana Lepofsky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to research led by Dana Lepofsky, some
clam gardens on the Pacific Northwest Coast are up to 3,500 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
Template:Did you know nominations/Dana Lepofsky. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (
here's how,
Dana Lepofsky), 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.
I'm fairly experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, i created 80+ articles to date. Most of my past work has been reviewed and passed successfully. I also have Autopatrolled, Rollbracker, New Page reviewer right in Bangla Wikipedia. I try to edit or create page in both English and Bangla wikipedia. --
Shahidul Hasan Roman (
talk)
14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:PERM requests are looked at by administrators, who are also volunteers, as and when they have time. Please be patient. –
Joe (
talk)
16:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps so. But that means your issue is with the tradition, yet you clearly aspersions on the bureaucrats: "I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports." when the very concern you have are the bureaucrats upholding a Wikipedia tradition as old as RfA. The proper mechanism to change that is RfC, not to tar and feather the bureaucrats. If anything, ignoring tradition would be a greater example of
WP:IAR than upholding it. As I've said before, I'm thick skinned enough to weather the slings and arrows thrown at Wikipedians who volunteer in contentious areas. However, you are an arbitrator; your words carry more weight, de facto than other editors, and I would hope you hold yourself to higher standards of civility, clarity, and accuracy. If you believe that our decision was "a poor close," by all means, please explain how in the context of current accepted Wikipedia policy, guideline, and tradition. I am always open to receiving constructive criticism as to how I may better serve. However, I'd ask that you do not conflate your frustration with what you believe to be an archaic and ill-considered tradition in and of itself with valid application of that tradition in context. Thank you for listening. --
Avi (
talk)
05:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@
Avraham: My primary 'issue' is the dismissal of the oppose votes, which in my opinion is clearly contrary to policy per
WP:SUPERVOTE. And in general the absurdity of declaring an outcome that at least a third of participants opposed a consensus. I brought this up on the crat chat talk page before it was closed (twice), as did other editors. I don't think the fact that I'm on ArbCom makes my opinion more important than other's, but as we were asked to comment on the matter, I think I'm entitled to share it.
But yes, while we're on the subject, I also think this 'tradition' is unfair and unsupported by policy. As a crat you're supposed to judge consensus. You're not doing that properly if you adopt one rule for one side of a debate and another for the other – especially when the position you deweight is actually the harder one to make, practically and socially. We don't do this anywhere else on the project. We also don't carry on doing things that are contrary to common sense
because they're 'tradition'.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm throwing "slings and arrows" but, at the end of the day, you hold the highest position of trust in our community. You should expect scrutiny. –
Joe (
talk)
06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Responding in anti-chronological order, first, as I said, I'm thick-skinned and thick-headed. As long as those arrows are cast with EnWiki's best interests at heart, feel free to pincushion me. Second, I'm sure you are aware, but for the benefit of any
jaguars, the reasoning behind the tradition is that every RfX comes with a nomination, which is usually detailed. Blank supports are considered per nom. Blank opposes don't have that fallback. Oppose per X where X lists arguments against the candidate are treated like X. lastly, and most importantly, in light of your particular concerns about the process, how do you believe bureaucrats should gauge the
"strength of rationales presented" and how should they implement that in their decision process? Thank you. --
Avi (
talk)
06:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@
Avraham: The same way I would close any other type of discussion (where, for example, I have consistently ignored every single "per nom"): by considering the extent to which they're in line with established consensus, their context, and the strength with which they were expressed. –
Joe (
talk)
06:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So you are suggesting we change the 15 or so year old process and no longer treat naked supports as per nom. That's fine, but there needs to be a consensus to change than and thus an RfC. Furthermore, I believe well established consensus is that the ranges are not sharp; if they were, strength of argument would be irrelevant. Strike all policy violations and then just tally, and that isn't how RfA/B has behaved, at least since 2006. I have to log off now, it's late in EDT. Thank you for your time. --
Avi (
talk)
06:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm saying that you should judge consensus at RfAs the same way we do everywhere else. Including giving "per noms" (explicit or otherwise)
practically no weight. And more importantly, not dismissing fellow contributor's opinions because you personally don't find them persuasive.
I fully agree that tallying and percentages are a naive way to gauge consensus. Incidentally, that's another aberration unique to RfA/B. –
Joe (
talk)
07:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted upon, a minimum quorum, or laying down some strict formula for consistency, or a firm numerical cut-off.
Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually
far more drama surrounding the Hunley RfA than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have conferred on them the responsibility of adjudicating on close calls.
Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins.
Biblioworm's reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the real problems with RfA.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty third
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (down from 14,745 last month to 14,729 on 28 April 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 86.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,177 articles.
Currently we have forty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The May 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
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.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were
desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh
Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
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.
Ah yes. Good point. I've done some more tidying. I see despite how long they've been around, they were still consistently adding unverifiable information.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
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.
Shad White: Page Deletion Because Of Banned User "05/25/19"
Hey Joe, it has come to our attention that you have deleted one of our client's (Shad White) Wikipedia page. Our client is the current State Auditor of Mississippi.
We contracted this project out using an online freelancing tool - we have no experience with building a Wikipedia page and quickly realized that we did not have time to figure out the process. I'm not sure how we would have figured out that the freelancer we used was a banned user, however, we provided him accurate information with correlating documentation. Shad's article successfully went through the approval process and was live until recently deleted by you.
Is there anything we can do on our end to get his page back live? Is there a way for me to claim the page instead of the freelancer we used or some other solution to this? It's unfortunate that our client is being penalized when the information provided is accurate with documentation to back it up, just because we used a vendor who we do not know personally (and had no inkling or anyway of finding out that he was in bad standing with Wikipedia).
@
Zgregory3: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. It is a neutral, volunteer-written encyclopaedia. The Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing with a
conflict of interest and very strongly discourages
editing for pay. In that sense all paid editors are in "bad standing". That Gibmul was not honest with you about this is not surprising given he also attempted to deceive the Wikipedia community to circumvent these and other rules.
Our policy is that edits by users evading a ban are deleted, so I will not restore
Shad White. The page doesn't belong to its creator or its subject, but to the Wikipedia community as a whole. To be clear, the rules I linked above mean that you or any other representatives or employees of Shad White should not make edits about him. Thank you for understanding that encyclopaedic coverage is not for sale here. –
Joe (
talk)
02:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty fourth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,729 last month to 14,757 on 28 May 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,199 articles.
Currently we have forty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The June 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
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.
Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.
There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some
other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have
the extension documentation and
some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!
Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the
old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to
change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)
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.
3 Arbs (AGK, Courcelles and Callanecc) did not sign on it. Will it be possible to state, as to whether this stems from inactivity or non-alignment of views?
∯WBGconverse09:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty fifth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,757 last month to 14,804 on 29 June 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,253 articles.
Currently we have forty nine Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The July 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
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.
I saw the same accreditation from Worm. Impressive. You're kind of a "new blood" or "freshman" arb, yet during the election I remember a lot of resounding confidence that you'd bring something very important to the team. It's good that you took the initiative to write the statement you did. You proved the endorsements right. You bring something special to the committee.
~Swarm~{sting}06:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that ArbCom not create the appearance that they are taking marching orders from T&S. Otherwise, your action won't end the controversy. You should act independently of T&S, based upon our established traditions.
JehochmanTalk18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@
Jehochman: It's certainly not my intention to create that impression. But realistically, T&S have already banned Fram and we can't take on the case without them passing us evidence, so they have to be involved in some way (essentially as a party to the case, in my view). –
Joe (
talk)
13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The current state of play is that Fram will be away July 15 to July 30. You can’t do much of a case without his input. Since the case can’t really get very far before he leaves, I now think it best to wait until Aug 1 and let Fram make a case request. By then you’ll have been briefed and be able to respond to questions without long delays. I recommend you follow the standard process for taking cases. I’d also like you to look at the behavior of people complaining anonymously about Fram. There may be an issue of off-wiki collusion, and a pattern of head hunting. Wikipedia is not a game where editors try to get perceived opponents banned.
JehochmanTalk00:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty sixth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,804 last month to 14,957 on 29 July 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,390 articles.
Currently we have fifty Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 July 2019, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Images of England
The
Images of England web site is to be decommissioned this month by
Historic England. The text of the site entries has been available on the corresponding
National Heritage List entry since that web site was created. The images are being transferred ahead of the decommissioning. As a result of this a BOT has changed all {{IoE}} templates to {{NHLE}} templates and translated the reference number according to a list provided by Historic England.
It would be good if members could check these, when they come across them, as I have spotted one with an incorrect translation. Some articles already had {{NHLE}} templates in them so the references may need to be combined. Other changes that may need to be performed are removal of template or text referring to the site as needing registration, changing the text "Images of England" or "IoE" to something more appropriate or may be even removing it if it is part of the description..
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The August 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
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.
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty seventh
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,957 last month to 14,992 on 30 August 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 153 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,407 articles.
Currently we have fifty Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 August 2019, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Wiki Loves Monuments
September is the time for the annual Wiki Loves Monuments competition to get quality photographs of listed buildings and scheduled monuments in the UK. It would be good if any members in the Yorkshire area got out and about taking images of any monuments or listed buildings that they find. There are still several entries on the various list articles without images and it would be best to prioritise these if you are in the right place. Details for this years competition can be
found here. There are cash prises of up to £250 for the best images that are submitted.
If you are not in Yorkshire then you are still able to join in as the competition covers the whole of the UK, separate competitions are available for other areas of the world if you are not UK based.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The September 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered September 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.
For you and Arbcom’s dedication to this project. Don’t take the heated words to seriously, this has been going on for weeks. Keep on making tough but fair decisions. Thanks again.
BabbaQ (
talk)
19:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's been a rough few months to us whom you (committee) put in distress. I don't want to repeat what I told Katie, Eric and the notice board, but please take some to heart. I read to myself "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this" (from my talk) again and again, but it hasn't worked yet. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
10:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Gerda I make no apologies for acting to remove people who are abusive to other editors from the project. I'll continue to advocate doing so for as long as I'm on the committee, no matter how good their contributions or how many friends they have. –
Joe (
talk)
22:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree! But can you please show how Fram was abusive after his last warning, to the extent that he needed to be banned, precluded from commenting on his own case, and then desysopped? So far no diffs have been posted, and nobody has explained why Fram was locked in a cage and muzzled. That's not a nice way to treat a volunteer while their case is being heard, at least not until they start misbehaving on the case pages.
JehochmanTalk15:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Request
You said, Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. Could you please add a finding of fact stating this clearly with a few representative diffs? Additionally could you add a second finding that "Contrary to our customs, Fram was not unblocked to participate on the case pages, due to restrictions placed by the Wikimedia Foundation." Maybe that reason isn't correct. See? A finding would be helpful to document this unusual condition and clarify the reason for it. Thank you.
JehochmanTalk14:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This is what the PD talk page is for,
Jehochman. A FoF on ADMINCOND has already been suggested multiple times (including by arbs). We're working on it. You really don't need to repeat the same point on all our individual talk pages. –
Joe (
talk)
15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you answer the other point please. Each of you got a differently framed set of questions based on your specific statements. My other question that you didn’t answer was what are you going to do about Fram having been banned improperly and not having been allowed to comment on the case pages. This was highly irregular and at minimum should be noted as a finding with an explanation of how it happened. As for the PD talk page, it seems like these questions were asked multiple times and no answer was given.
JehochmanTalk15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Given all that you have going on with Wikipedia I am truly appreciative that you not only took the time to participate in my RfA but to do so with a thoughtful personalized comment. Thank you. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --
valereee (
talk)
13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
However, the baroque way in which a portal like this are built involves a forest of sub-pages, without which the portal is just a shell. IN this case, there were 130 sub-pages, listed in the
deletion log of the MFD closer
User:MER-C.
BTW, just for the record, I disagree with your close as relist, but I didn't come here to argue that. I just want to ensure that if we are to have a renewed debate on a page which gets only
20 views per day ... then editors should be able to examine it.
My evil twin is mumbling that another 130 manual restorations is karma for your decision to exercise your discretion in this way, but I couldn't possibly comment on that
.
I thought the consensus was pretty clear, and my rule of thumb is that more discussion (almost) never hurts. Still, I closed it, I'll take my 130 lumps. –
Joe (
talk)
21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I counted 11–8, but it comes down to the balance of arguments as usual. There was a lot of regurgitating the MfD arguments in the endorses, when DRVs are supposed to be about the deletion process. Also several bold-endorses said they didn't object to relisting as a compromise.
The third grant-funded round of
WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the
final report for more information.
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty eighth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,992 last month to 15,070 on 30 September 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 155 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,419 articles.
Currently we have fifty Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 September 2019, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered October 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.
@
Jovanmilic97: There isn't a strong consensus in either AfD, since only one other person participated. The difference is that
Crunchball 3000 has already been through an AfD, so the barrier for deletion is a little higher. –
Joe (
talk)
07:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I am concerned that your hardline (and in my view, unreasonable) interpretation of WP:PAY may have helped to sink the RfA of a good candidate. Unless they were actually paid to edit Wikipedia, it is simply unfair and untrue to call Greenman a paid editor. You can argue that they have edited with a conflict of interest, but by levelling this accusation of editing for pay, I feel you have crossed a line. You seem a very reasonable person, so I thought I would just clarify this with you :) Best — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
11:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi
MSGJ. I acknowledge that there is some room for interpretation in the COI policy and that mine is on the stricter end. Making a sharp distinction between "paid editing" and a "financial conflict of interest" seems to be important to some but I just don't see that as a hair worth splitting. I very much agree with
Lourdes' view: his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. So while I'm sorry that Greenman is having to suffer a bad RfA—they're an unpleasant experience even when they go well—I did vote oppose so I obviously can't claim that I'm unhappy with the outcome. –
Joe (
talk)
11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Only (
watching), but: I think it's fair to say that the only guilty parties for the failure of this RfA are the candidate themselves and their nominator: the former for not getting their ducks, as they say, in a row, and the latter for not ensuring that they were watertight. Indeed, a good nominator would have alleviated many of the opposes with a well-crafted nomination. While it's not necessarily the fault of the candidate who their nominator is (that is, the faults of the nominator are not and should not be confused with those of the candidate), it's hardly the fault of the RfA reviewer that they did not do so. And it is not JoeRoe's fault that the nom has taken the trajectory that it has: sixteen editors opposed before them, and it was no more doomed after one particular !vote than it was previously. Except Lourdes's perhaps.
——SerialNumber5412911:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Another tps: I was determined to just let the RfA go without a comment, but "doomed" has alerted me. Too bad, I really don't have the time to investigate a candidate I don't know yet, but I am defiant ;) - will vote support or not at all. - Could someone else please deal with "my" referencing problems for
a GAN, perhaps? --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Marchjuly, I hadn't seen that. I probably would have relisted the AfD if that comment had been made in it. @
Superstars8547: would you like me to reopen the discussion? Note that there's no guarantee that it will change the outcome, but it might. –
Joe (
talk)
09:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
COI
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I disagree with most of your interpretation of COI at BN and RFA. Consider this - you state on your user page that you are employed as an archaeologist, specifically using computational archaeology. Most of your listed selected contributions are articles falling somewhere in that field. I'll pull one -
Digital archaeology - where it is written that computational archaeology is a subfield of digital archaeology. According to how I understand your understanding of COI, you've not been editing in accordance with the policy. You are paid to utilize computational archaeology, and here you are writing articles that seek to further that field and it's applications. You need to recuse yourself from the topics where you have a financial incentive to edit. Thank you.
Mr Ernie (
talk)
08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I resent that accusation,
Mr Ernie. Archaeology is a field of academic study. It doesn't pay me – because it's not an organisation and has no money. The idea that experts can't contribute to their area of expertise is a tortuous misinterpretation of the COI policy that would shoot the encylopaedia in the foot. There's even a passage in
WP:COI about it, subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise.
I've always been very careful about potential professional COIs in my field. My employer is the
University of Copenhagen which of course I haven't edited. I don't cite my own papers, even though that's permitted by
WP:SELFCITE. I don't directly edit articles on sites I've worked on, even though again that is allowed by policy and there are tonnes of red links in that area. I don't edit biographies of colleagues I've ever been in contact with, even though I'm one of the main contributors to biographies of archaeologists.
It's fine that we disagree about the interpretation of the COI policy. It's not okay to throw around absurd accusations. That is the issue at BN right now and a recurring problem at RfA recently: legitimate disagreements over policy are used as excuses to badger and cast aspersions on the competence of fellow editors. –
Joe (
talk)
08:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly it could be argued that you have an ongoing financial interest in keeping these articles up-to-date, well-written, well-cited, and showing your field to be producing useful or interesting discoveries even if not your own. Having these articles up-to-date may impact future funding that is accreted to you, your department, or your field in general. If you find this line of argument to be ridiculous, surely you can understand why some feel that your line of argument that updating version numbers raises a financial conflict concern is ridiculous as well. I agree that a disagreement over policy was used to cast aspersions on Greenman, which was unfortunate. –
xenotalk09:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. The field has existed for 200 years and will almost certainly get along fine regardless of my Wikipedia edits. There is no comparison to editing the article on the company that pays your wages.
To be honest
xeno, I'm sick of you hounding me and deliberately misrepresenting my words over this. It's totally inappropriate for a bureaucrat to so doggedly badger oppose voters in an RfA. Please do not ping me or post to my talk page from here on. –
Joe (
talk)
10:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Johnvr4: I don't think that was a good idea. It was still there for anyone to read, but uncollapsed the sheer length makes the discussion (and by extension the whole DRV page at the moment) cumbersome to navigate. This isn't helpful for other participants who have already read your comments, or whoever eventually closes it. Collapsing extended commentary is a pretty normal thing to do. –
Joe (
talk)
15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Joe Roe: My apology, It all seemed very relevant to the issue per the linked discussion. Feel free to reverse my undo or offer your two cents at the discussion. I won't edit war but if you could please trim it sparingly, I'd appreciate it. I just can't believe there is all grief over one sentence with enough RS Citekill to literally kill something.
Johnvr4 (
talk)
15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
OnBuy Article Undelete
Hi There Joe_Roe! I hope that you can help me to restore a page that you once voted for deletion which I feel was very unfair given that the company was very notable in the UK. I had performed some updates for this company as I took a very active interest in their development as a brand. They are now even more notable and soon launching overseas according to a press release I read this Am, so I am surprised to see that since your deletion they have not been back on Wikipedia. I think this was a mistake, if I am honest and I hope that you can assist with the undeleting. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
Hi
UKBizMan I had deja vu reading your message and, sure enough, we have
had this same conversation last year. Back then I agreed to restore the old article as a draft (
Draft:OnBuy), but you didn't make any improvements to it and it was deleted again. I'm not willing to restore the draft again. There is nothing stopping you writing a new article on the company but it will probably just get deleted again. –
Joe (
talk)
12:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I will give up on Wikipedia I took an interest in this company because I believe what they are doing is right - but having wasted my time for you to come along and delete it because you feel superior is just a waste of my time entirely, and I was simply doing what I felt was right after seeing a company regularly on the news but having no page. I will bow down to your obvious superiority and retire from Wikipedia. Be well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UKBizMan (
talk •
contribs)
12:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@
UKBizMan: I'm sorry to hear you are giving up on editing. As I tried to explain before, I don't personally decide to delete articles, Wikipedia admins like me only implement what other editors agree should be done. –
Joe (
talk)
13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Joe Roe: I've given it one last go. If it works I'm going to spend the next six months of my retirement reviewing marketplaces as it's where I have an active interest. I've kept the page very short
Draft:OnBuy what do you think? Is this better? If so I'll leave it for others to contribute. But if this isn't enough for notability (I listed the UK government site which advises customers where to sell online!) then none of my interested marketplaces that I wanted write about will work. 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Joe Roe: I have created
Draft:Tenzing so before I start working down my list of things I wanted to either create or edit, I hoped you could share a small bit of feedback from your experience - is it acceptable to create small draft pages from the outset and grow them over time, or is it more likely to be published if pages are comprehensive from draft stage? Much appreciated.
User:UKBizMan14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello again
UKBizMan. It's perfectly fine to start small and add material over time – that's what drafts are for. The key thing is that before you hit "submit your draft for review", you've put in enough references to
independent, reliable sources to show that the subject is
notable (specifically a
notable company in this case). That is the main thing reviewers will be looking for. If you're unsure about whether a subject is notable or if a draft is ready, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. –
Joe (
talk)
14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, If you strike Carajou's invalid vote and completely irrelevant comment, consensus is unanimous to delete this stub-class, non-notable Canadian bank subsidiary. I'd argue relisting doesn't serve a useful purpose.--
Doug Mehus (
talk)
16:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Dmehus: I disagree.
Carajou claiming there are sources is neither irrelevant nor an invalid vote. With only three participants, no consensus has emerged; there needs to be more discussion to see whether others agree with you or Carajou. –
Joe (
talk)
17:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, Did you look at the sources quoted, though? They aren't even relevant. They link to a spammy site CoinDesk, and have literally nothing to do with
Shinhan Bank Canada. At the same time, Carajou is the subject of an active
WP:COI case related to his or her participation in the NewtonX deletion discussion, for which one or more admins raised eyebrows at the listed users' coordinated involvement. I suspect this was a case of
WP:SOURGRAPES on Carajou's part, so figured he or she would just vote counter to emerging consensus on a number of articles when the NewtonX discussion wasn't going his or her way. At any rate, I think quality of arguments should be considered—for which there was zero put forth by Carajou—and it makes sense to at least strike his or her spammy, irrelevant links from the record.
Doug Mehus (
talk)
17:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe, I have assumed good faith, and always do except when demonstrated, habitually, otherwise. But still, do you not at least admit that the sources provided were completely irrelevant?
Doug Mehus (
talk)
18:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear Joe Roe, you have helped me in the past with new English articles such as the one on Constant Cornelis Huysmans. Now I would like to request once again your assistance. I have submitted as a draft a new English article on the Dutch jazz band leader Dick Willebrandts. The Dutch version of this article which I also wrote is available on the Dutch Wikipedia. Now the Engllish article on Dick Willebrandts seems to be accepted as a draft, but I am not sure how to submit it for review, link
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AllPages&from=Detlef+Schuppan&namespace=118
Please help. Best regards,
Hanengerda (
talk)
07:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I just clicked on the grey box which I initially was afraid to do and it is now a draft for review. Thanks again, best regards,
Hanengerda (
talk)
07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and thirty ninth
WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,079 last month to 15,112 on 30 October 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 155 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 69 out of a total number of 4,438 articles.
Currently we have fifty Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 October 2019, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
General Election
With the calling of a General Election will members keep an eye on the various Parliament constituency articles. Please check that the candidates are appropriately referenced and that they appear in alphabetical order by surname so that we do not show any bias to a particular party. It is also worth checking the settlement articles to see if they have the correct constituency shown.
There will also be all of the candidate articles to check to see if they have the appropriate term end details and text to show if they are standing or not at the election.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The November 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered November 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.
14:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Joe Roe/Archives,
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 803 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
I , by this, dicussion cite that the year regarding the book was correctly cited but this book was published and influenced only due Mortensen's views based on the research on web.
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.
@
Lajmmoore: Thank you for writing so many nice articles in such a short time! If you're interested, we have a small working group working on biographies of women archaeologists at
WP:ARCHAEO/WOMEN. It's not been particularly active lately, but you might find some of the resources there helpful. –
Joe (
talk)
14:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
TY for acknowledging and responding. I remember it was done once, but I couldn't tell you what year, so I can't give you details. (I'm sure NYB will know). I think maybe a pause between evidence and workshop during the week between Christmas and New Years? IDK. Anyway - good luck with a difficult case, and I know I don't say it nearly often enough - TY to all for serving. (it will be my NY resolution to be more appreciative of you folks)
— Ched (
talk)
01:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Ched, I appreciate it. To clarify, I do agree with you that it would be helpful to have the new arbs' help on this, I just think it will happen anyway without an explicit suspension. I certainly don't plan on doing an arbitration work over the Christmas holiday! –
Joe (
talk)
07:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at
the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Do not
simply delete others valid talk page comments. Thanks. It's not your page. There is nothing wrong with the query. It is there for all to see, not just you. I don't care what the nature of it is, don't delete others input and nobody will ever be upset by it, right? ~
R.
T.
G17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact, now that I read the enquiry, it is a request not to be ignored. Deleting this enquiry was inflammatory indeed. You know not to do this. Thanks. ~
R.
T.
G18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi
RTG. That page is not a talk page. It's an arbitration case request, which is there for the sole and specific purpose of helping ArbCom decide whether to accept a case. Arbitrators (like myself) and clerks have the full remit to maintain pages in arbitration space, for example by removing comments that are not directly relevant to the case request.
Usedtobecool's question was a perfectly valid one, but it was misplaced – it should have been on the talk page. As it happens, I was able to answer it in my edit summary, so there was no need to move it. And judging by their "thanks" for my revert, I don't think Usedtobecool minds. –
Joe (
talk)
18:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Those are another editors words. You cannot predict thanks for questionable actions. If you deleted a comment from me saying please don't ignore this comment, I'd be infuriated. There was no need to delete the comment. It was an expression that arbitration is not needed in this case. I have no opinion on that. I have an opinion though about deleting others comments or changing their meaning, or preventing discussion. You know you shouldn't do this. I am inclined now to watch out for you and when you upset someone like this annoy the s*** out of you. There is absolutely no need or valid reason to delete that comment. The fact that arbs have the power over that page does not lift them above simple things like this, as you well know. A statement asking you not to take a case on the requests page is not for the talk page. Sorry to challenge your comfort but you are going to confuse somebody, they are going to get upset about it, edit war their comment back onto the page or, go away with the idea they shouldn't make that comment on that page. You could just leave it there. Instead you edit warred it off with me. There's not much I can do to make you do anything but I am proposing something here that you, as a dispute settler, should be agreeable to. Sorry about getting all up in your station here but that really is an infuriating thing you just done whether Usedtobecool cares, or rolls over, or whatever basically. ~
R.
T.
G18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
With respect,
RTG, are you sure you've understood Usedtobecool's comment? They asked why there has been a delay in accepting the case, and I pointed them to a comment from another arbitrator that explained why. They didn't say anything about being ignored, and in the immediately preceding paragraph said I think this case should be accepted. I don't think anyone is upset here except you, and I'm scratching my head as to why you care so intensely about another editor's comment which, at least initially, you didn't even read? –
Joe (
talk)
18:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool asked you to close the request and move along. It includes words to the effect of what is the point of making comments if they are not allowed to stand. Removing, and changing the nature of another editors comments, is the most inflammatory thing you can do with them. There was no need to delete the comment. There is no need to try and shuffle around the point I am making here, like as if I didn't make a point, like as if you just deleted it. ~
R.
T.
G18:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Do I have to start quoting guidelines about this? I know you know about not to delete others comments. There is no need to try and game your way around accepting it if indeed the action was innocent enough. If you want to respond to Usedtobecool, you should use the arbitration area and the notification system, as is standard. ~
R.
T.
G18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@
RTG: In fairness it is a bit hard to parse, but Usedtobecool actually said ...if comments disregarding the point aren't not allowed to stand, i.e. they're asking why we've allowed off-topic comments to remain on the page (@
Usedtobecool: please correct me if I've misunderstood). Your point, as I understand it, is that removing others' comments can be seen as inflammatory? My response was that removing off-topic comments is a routine part of clerking arbitration pages. I think most reasonable people understand that and don't get upset by it. It's particularly banal in this case since I answered the editor's question at the same time, apparently to their satisfaction. I don't have much to say beyond that. –
Joe (
talk)
19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence was in fact directly relevant to the case at hand. Usedtobecool said, "and I think I've words to spare". They weren't interested in being deleted. They just said they weren't going to press very hard for a response. Deletion was not very encouraging was it. ~
R.
T.
G19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing superceeds deleting comments pertinent to discussion. Here is Joe about my complaint, "actions aggravate people simply because they come from an arb/clerk". I've made the point. Let's just see what happens then. ~
R.
T.
G19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,112 last month to 15,231 on 29 November 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 156 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 87.
WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 68 out of a total number of 4,444 articles.
Currently we have fifty one Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
General Election
With the General Election continuing will members keep an eye on the various Parliament constituency articles. Please check that the candidates are appropriately referenced and that they appear in alphabetical order by surname so that we do not show any bias to a particular party. Once results are in then these will need updating in the constituency articles and the elected MPs reflected in the settlement articles.
Happy Christmas
Well it is that time of year again and time to wish all members of the project a Happy Christmas.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The December 2019 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a
clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the
watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for
WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at
WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered December 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.
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.
(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.
PrimeBOT (
talk) is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラPはJoe Roe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P03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{
subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.