This page is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2024. 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.
Following a
motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were
enacted in June 2009.
Thanks; I think it was needed, I didn't entirely feel comfortable doing it myself. I realized later that there was yet another article I'd found issues with that I didn't post on-wiki, and consequently didn't mention to you; now mentioned
here. Uncomfortably similar to what Praxidicae found.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
18:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not something I like doing, but I think in this case both autopatrolled and NPR had to go. –
Joe (
talk)
18:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and eighty 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 (down from 18,873 last month to 18,855 on 4 January 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 216 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 89.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 92 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 4,872 articles.
Currently we have seventy five 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
A Happy New Year to all members of the project and thanks for all the work you have put in supporting articles relating to Yorkshire in the last year.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 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.
You were right about Qautro. Perhaps surprisingly, the master was not stale. I G5ed a couple of articles, can I leave you to perform any further clear-up that's needed, I've got to run. Cheers
GirthSummit (blether)14:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hope you're well. Ldm1954's recent
spree of draftifications after becoming a reviewer is a bit odd, reflecting their limited experience with the guidelines. They use a strict interpretation of
WP:NPROF, which is okay, but they should aim for RfC and change the guidelines rather than doing it this way.
The article on
Draft:Steven Detweiler was a perfectly valid one, but they chose to draftify it.
Draft:Shyam Gollakota is another article they draftified, akin to soft deletion, considering this article had been up for more than 3 months and is a direct violation of
WP:ATD-I (i.e. discussion you closed).
I should also point out that they are also an AfC reviewer and they are similarly declining valid academics and researcers' drafts. Can you please revert these spree moves and give them some specific advice? Thanks.
109.180.245.108 (
talk)
21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I am unsure if this is the correct place for this (and admittedly I'm mostly here since I have not interacted with any other administrator for a while), but there is a somewhat difficult situation unfolding over at
Talk:Budapest#Climate. I do not think I can give you a full explanation of the issue -- there's no way I can explain all 70 comments in a talk page message, though I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at it if you have time.
I am unsure as to where to carry this dispute. The two other editors in this dispute have violated
WP:QUO by insisting on the new version without the discussion ending, cast aspersions/did not
WP:AGF on multiple occasions, while also creating
WP:LISTEN-related problems. I don't know if this is severe enough for a report to ANI, but I am also unsure of what other venue is appropriate for this. I have alerted the Weather WikiProject and
Talk:Köppen climate classification to no avail, as well. Could you please take a look?
Hi
Uness232. That's an interesting discussion. My read, with the large caveat that I don't know much about the topic at all, is that it's probably not one that is going to be solved through the user-conduct route with ANI etc. You're quite right that "humid subtropical" is the status quo version and that it really ought to have remained until a consensus develops, but in general I see three editors arguing in good faith over a genuinely tricky issue. Or issues, actually, there are at least two that I can see:
Is deriving the a Köppen classification from weather summaries a
routine calculation? On the one hand, as you've argued, the calculation itself is trivial. On the other, there seems to be some expertise involved in deciding which variant of the Köppen system to use, deciding whether to use local or regional weather data, how to account for climate change, and so on, which might tip it into
WP:NOR territory.
How do reliable sources describe the climate of Budapest? Or failing that, of Central Hungary, or of Hungary as a whole?
It might be worth having an RfC on #1, just to clarify things, but I think focusing on #2 would be your quickest route out of this particular dispute. Something I've often noticed is that if sources and/or editors disagree about something, the way to resolve the dispute is to describe the disagreement in the article itself. So in this case, it might be wording along the lines of Central Hungary has a [W] climate, but in recent years the climate of Budapest has shifted to Köppen [X], which is described as [Y] or [Z], that everyone can agree on?
By the way, this is sort of the opposite to my take on the Turkish placename dispute: I think you're right about the guidelines being contradictory there, but I don't think that particular editor was applying them in good faith anyway, so that's why I took it to ANI. I didn't mean to ignore or dismiss your point. –
Joe (
talk)
10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for your thoughts on this. While I suppose I have a different view of their conduct -- perhaps due to the unyielding and stubborn way of argumentation, i.e. calling Köppen "fringe", accusing me of "POV-pushing" (I do not even know what POV I would be pushing in terms of climate classification), arguing with repetitive assertions rather than responses to questions -- I understand that a report to ANI would be misguided.
Re. your other suggestions, I would like to offer some clarification; not as "rebuttals" or anything like that; but rather because I think the issue is even more tricky than these solutions would allow:
For the former issue, I am willing to discuss, in a more general venue, the correct way to use Köppen. I do think that our current way (using the weatherbox) would be
WP:CALC not only due to the high level of standardization that Köppen has,1 but also due to the fact that I'd say we have no choice (for data insufficiency/resolution reasons), however I am willing to listen to opposing arguments. I am not willing to accept Budapest as the singular case where this matters, though. The world is full of similar cases, where climate change or an urban heat island has changed the Köppen type of a city (
Zonguldak,
Lyon,
New York City, and many more) and for all of them we take climate change into account and use weatherboxes, not maps. This was why I repeatedly asked these conversations to be moved to
Köppen climate classification, or somewhere similar; because Budapest is far from the only example of this, yet it seems like Budapest not being called humid subtropical is all that is being cared about. I would assume that to be nearly tantamount to
WP:IJDLI unless generalized to other cases.
For the latter issue, this is a constant and intractable problem of climate classification on Wikipedia. Currently, all -- and I mean all -- climate articles on this encyclopedia are based on Köppen.
Humid subtropical climate speaks of Cfa in Köppen,
Oceanic climate speaks of Cfb in Köppen, with very rare exceptions.
I had actually challenged this status quo about 6 months ago, but the community does not seem to be for changes to this Köppen-centric way of climate classification on Wikipedia.
The problem, then, is that emic/local classifications often have little overlap with Köppen, so somewhere that would be one class by a local classification could be a completely different one by Köppen. This would cause serious problems if we were to include local classifications with no systematization.
For example:
Portland, Oregon is generally described as an
oceanic climate in local literature, but Köppen describes it as
Mediterranean, because according to Köppen, oceanic climates can not have a dry summer.
The oceanic climate article exclusively uses the Köppen criteria, which would exclude climates like Portland from the climate page.
This would cause a glaring discrepancy; the climate and the city article would conflict with each other. Portland would have an oceanic climate, a climate zone which should, by its only given definition, exclude Portland.
Obviously we can diversify both types of pages, but 'one but not the other' seems unrealistic and highly problematic. And again, we arrive at the same problem; these editors seem to argue, highly persistently and stubbornly, for this change to be made only for Budapest, and ignore (not even reject, simply ignore) my attempts to carry the conversation somewhere more reasonable (so that problems on broad/local consensus are resolved). This is why I referred to user conduct.
About the placename dispute; the reason I wrote that comment over at ANI was because Omnibenevolence claimed that I had 'a point' that you 'failed to answer', which deeply bothered me. I suppose I then sneaked my thoughts by the end; but I did not mean to say that you ignored my point, simply that you took a different approach, which is completely fine.
1 While there are changeable rules in one or two places, we can and do note them when they matter, i.e in
Boston. Conversely,
Budapest is Cfa no matter which variant of Köppen we use.
Uness232 (
talk)
14:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I did not say Köppen is fringe, morover Köppen does not use those terms. I said only that Hungary would be "subtropical" country I found that term is fringe, by good faith, as I am a local Hungarian person I never ever heard about this (
JSoos also a Hungarian user), and no any Hungarians know about this. Just I am looking out my window and I see a big snow... in that allegedly "subtropical" country. I also provided many Köppen maps which does not support that claim. Morover I see Hungary and even Budapest has more Köppen color in the maps, which means even a city has more climate. For example Buda-Pest (united city) is big, Buda has mountains, Pest is flat, Buda is always more cold than Pest, they have very different climate within the same united city, that is my personal experience, and all Budapest citizens know that. The provided Hungarian wiki writes also different and provide a complex situation of the country, and we learn that our climate is continental in general according to our knowledge. I contacted with the Hungarian meteorolgy service and they cannot confirm that "subtropical" thing. Köppen does not use those terms,
Uness232 also mentioned that "subtropical" term was accepted by some users in the past for wikipedia, that is why need to follow that, I rather think we need follow academic sources regarding the exact definiton of the climate of a country instead of voting and rendering terms to temparetures.
In the Koppen maps I can see many areas in Hungary even in Budapest as Dfa Dfb Cfa Cfb patches, so the climate map is not unified, so I do not understand why it needs cherry pick only one and emphasize this that the cherry picked one would be true for the whole area. Morover Koppen does not use that term for these codes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/tables/1
I suppose in Hungary the local Hungarians know better the climate than others who are not living there, I also do not think that it deserve ANI because we the Hungarian local people does not know or does not understand that our country would be "subtropical"... I also do not understand why we need use those terms (what I found fringe) and why not enough just use the official Köppen numbers. Do you think all Hungarian users are wrong or deserve ANI just because they does not understand this?
Uness232 mentioned "status quo version", so I rolled back the page manually to discover when happened that change, and I see recently the climate was not that
I do not want the dispute to spill over here, to the talk page of an uninvolved admin. I had already made my response to Joe Roe too long and too content-related; that was my mistake. Sorry.
Uness232 (
talk)
13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using
Edit Summary Search.
Welcome to the drive! By searching Archaeology incategory:"All articles lacking sources", I was able to find a lot of archeology journals and sites that are completely uncited. I think you might be interested looking into them because these are your topic of expertise and is an excuse to test out your citation skills. See you at the drive on February 1st!
CactiStaccingCrane (
talk)
14:21, 22 January 2024 (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 18,855 last month to 18,943 on 31 January 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 217 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 89.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 93 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 4,916 articles.
Currently we have seventy five 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.
Unreferenced backlog
There is an
Unreferenced Article Backlog drive running throughout February across Wikipedia, it would be good for project members to be involved in this and help reduce the number of unreferenced articles supported by the project. You do not have to signup to be involved. There are currently 245 in the "Cites no sources" section of the
project's clean-up listing that could do with some sources adding to them.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The February 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 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.
An
RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (
T326065)
Arbitration
Following a
motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is
requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at
WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via
Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found
here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the
Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes.
Read more
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeology of the Holocaust until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Welcome to the one hundred and ninty 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 18,943 last month to 19,208 on 28 February 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 219 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 90.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 93 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 4,983 articles.
Currently we have seventy six 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 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 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.
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the
2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving
RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver,
Ritchie333, and
HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the
administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing!
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her), via:
Thanks for closing this. I agree that everything had been said and the discussion had become unproductive. Would you please record in your closing statement that one of the outcomes of this XRV was to make a corrective entry in Tewdar's block log? I hope to make this correction normal when we overturn a block.—
S MarshallT/
C09:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Good wishes @
Joe Roe and safe talking. I just wanted to clarify an issue with your decline of my request for Autopatrolled. Not being blameful but just a pure inquiry. Your statement mentioned "prelude" and it got me, "So, it's impossible.for me to be Autopatrolled because of one of my article being deleted via AFD. I consider you may see other articles; I don't believe one could hold me from Autopatrolled. Just a real time enquiry (ping if any case: I want to learn more also) All the Best! Otuọcha (
talk)11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
(
talk page stalker) Pages created by autopatrolled users don't receive the scrutiny that normal pages do so there's a very high bar when admins are evaluating such requests. It's incredibly reasonable for an admin to decline granting autopatrolled because the user in question has had article(s) deleted. I will note that autopatrolled isn't like other permissions in that it doesn't really have any bearing on what you can do (apart from quicker search engine indexing). Its main purpose is to reduce the backlog of pages that need to be reviewed.
Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a high bar. We're basically looking for 100% of recent articles not being deleted and close to 100% being free of anything covered by a maintenance tag. The AfD doesn't mean you'll never be eligible for autopatrolled, just not for a while; six months to a year, though there's no hard rule. –
Joe (
talk)
12:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (
T313405)
Arbitration
An
arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for
The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve
vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the
May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the
Awards page and the
Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated
NPP Browser tool.
Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, Joe. Thanks for closing the Thinker78 ANI. I've been watching it, worrying a little that someone might close it before the 24 hours were up, but of course you didn't do that. I was wondering, though: in your close, you mention the possibility of waiting 72 hours. I didn't know that was even a thing; I thought the principle was to wait 24 hours before enforcing a CBAN, both to accommodate all the timezones and out of respect for the individual being banned. Is the idea of waiting 72 hours mentioned anywhere? If so, surely it's more honoured in the breach than the observance?
Thanks, Fortuna. Like Hamlet, I still don't think it's usually what actually happens, though. And I'm looking at the RFC, noting the arguments, and the users urging them... hmmm. Yeah, that's what I think: hmmm.
Firefangledfeathers, I do see it's suggested site bans don't require logging. How strange. I would definitely log this one, if it was me. It's not like it's a horrible scarlet letter on the user; the editing restrictions page is pretty obscure. Something for the cognoscenti only.
Bishonen |
tålk14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC).
I noticed the early close and was going to point back to that policy too, since I've been whacked with a wet trout about it before, but I think this is a good use of
WP:IAR. There was obviously only going to be more hard words for the editor that they probably wouldn't hear anyway. As for logging: I wouldn't bother personally, EDR ought to be for editors with restrictions from certain things, not for editors who can't edit at all. It would be a very long page otherwise, and we have
Category:Banned Wikipedia users.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't even think it's IAR because WP:CBAN says "must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours" and this seems to fall squarely into that exception.
Levivich (
talk)
16:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the editor is much better off banned, given what they've said about their issues and the behavior they've shown which was a bit disturbing.
Doug Wellertalk16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As Levivich says, I was following the instructions from
WP:CBAN: for site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. Feel free to log it somewhere; I don't really see the point. –
Joe (
talk)
07:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the
Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.
You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of
WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a
previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)
I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the
meetup page.
Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.
Welcome to the one hundred and ninty 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 19,208 last month to 19,275 on 8 April 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 221 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 90.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 93 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 5,047 articles.
Currently we have seventy six 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 April 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 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.
Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of
Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of
GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.
Just thought I'd drop a note to you to remind you that category redirects are not created like article redirects. Please check out the code/template on this page so if you want to create more in the future, you won't have to go looking for the information. That's it! Have a great weekend! LizRead!Talk!02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I just want to say that my wording was not great over at the conflict of interest discussion. In no way do I think you are unfit to be an admin or acting in bad faith. With all due respect, I do think there was a bit of bad judgment there, and I should have phrased it that way. Cheers.
Dumuzid (
talk)
15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for taking the time to clarify. As Floq has just wisely observed, messages sent through AN/I seem to come out in the worst possible way, no matter how carefully you try to word them. –
Joe (
talk)
15:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I just wanted to thank you for having a look at my recent application for NPP. I know it takes a lot of time to review this, so thanks!! Apologies also for not replying earlier, things suddenly got busier in real life than I had expected; sorry!
Jtrrs0 (
talk)
13:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
"Framming"
I'm not sure how Fram felt about it given that they chose to reply to TheAnonme rather than you, but I felt "framming" to be a disrespectful verb.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I expect Fram knows how I have developed my understanding of their unique role in the project. –
Joe (
talk)
12:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Didn't want to derail the ANI
(See above. It's far too serious!) but
your reminder was a blast from the past. Did you ever see that episode of Brass Eye where Gerry Adams's deputy, being interviewed, has to "inhale helium gas so as to detract from his credibility"? Fantastic stuff.
——Serial Number 5412918:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and ninty 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 (up from 19,275 last month to 19,335 on 28 April 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 220 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 90.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 93 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 5,054 articles.
Currently we have seventy six 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.
Elections
This is the month for local elections, Mayoral elections and
Police and Crime Commissioner elections. There will be a large number of results articles that need creating or updating. There will also be updates to most of the location articles, with changes to the governess sections and infoboxes. Not to mention the people articles for those standing for election.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The May 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 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.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks.
T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the
voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please
review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Hello, in relation to
this revert, and the use of the phrase "rule of thumb", many academic institutions consider it best not to use the phrase
due to its history. I am easy either way with whatever you wish to do, I just thought I would let you know the rationale behind my edit. —
GMH Melbourne (
talk)
00:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I was looking for admin/check user to review and block this accounts.
1.
User:MaartenEdieg who joined in less than a day, created a talk page reading WenguiGuo#WashingtonFarm The Kwok scam only pits the ants Guo Wengui touted things to the sky all day long, from farms to Xi Yuan, he declared, "Xi Yuan's encryption capabilities and future payments, as well as the future exchange with the US dollar, will create history, is the only stablecoin, floating, modern crypto financial platform." The ant help to fool the head, but after dozens of broken promises.... These are the diffs
[1] and was blanked
here.
2.
User:LigonJudd who joined almost the same time did the same
here, and after a welcome message
blanked the talk page as usual. To show they aren't here to build an Encyclopedia, they recreated it on same TP
here until they got a warning by Viewmont Viking
here. After the warning, they
blanked it again. This same user created a sandbox
here of same content.
3. There comes
User:ColbyIjazvHtE who joined at same time with the rest and created this
sandbox with the same content. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!11:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh? I did not know that. Thanks for educating me. Though,
OED says it was used from 1779–1859. You've been around a while, it seems! starship.paint (
RUN)14:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and ninty 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 19,335 last month to 19,422 on 3 June 2024). In the area of GAs
WP:YORKS at 219 is ahead of
WP:GM who have 90.
WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 93 while
WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 5,076 articles.
Currently we have seventy six 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 2024 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on 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.
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 2024 by
MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
NPR activity requirement
Hey Joe, I saw your comment here which said "That's strange. NPR isn't usually subject to an activity requirement." Per
WP:NPRREVOKE, if an editor has been inactive for 12 months or longer, the right may be revoked. Just wanted to point that out instead of responding to the comment directly at
WP:PERM/NPR =)
Hey man im josh (
talk)
13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks.
Ingenuity said the same at PERM. I don't know how I managed to miss that over all these years! Maybe the heat is getting to me. –
Joe (
talk)
13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Joe Roe/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Joe, noted your edit at Domestication. I've tweaked
Rice and
History of rice cultivation with the same source, but I fancy that the History article is using a lot of old sources, all added at the same time a decade ago, and probably in need of a bit more updating. If you fancy taking a look, it'd be appreciated.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
12:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You granted new page reviewer status to Robocritic and immediately he has blanked 2 of my pages and redirected them without going through the nomination process. 1 is this allowed? 2 can I appeal? 3 this guy is clearly unsuitable to be a reviewer so can I appeal against him getting this status?
Shrug02 (
talk)
07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi
Shrug02. Yes, it's a common practice called
blank-and-redirecting. There is no need to appeal to anyone; if you disagree, just revert it. If
RoboCric (courtesy ping) disagrees with this, they can then start a discussion. I realise that the sudden disappearance of your article can feel drastic, but the logic is that because blank-and-redirecting is easily reverted, it can be handled using the normal
bold-revert-discuss cycle. –
Joe (
talk)
08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
How can I access the pages to turn off the redirect as when I click on them they just go to the redirected page?
Shrug02 (
talk)
08:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There should be a link at the top of the page which allows you to get back to the redirect. For example, if you click on
WP:REDIRECT, there's a note just under the title that says: