User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 76
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
Technical news
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Lincoln Diocese - Safeguarding
Hello Ealdgyth I noticed you deleted wholesale a new section on Lincoln Diocese page - all of which had been accurately cited and referenced. By same token you'd need to edit out the same section on Diocese of Chichester page which has involved many editors and many references? The same heading (Safeguarding) was used, and placed in the same place in the article. Don't you think recent BBC revelations about the diocese, multiple cover-ups, diocesan failure on a scale with or perhaps even greater than Chichester - warrant inclusion in wiki? Your deletion implies that the record of a diocese's widespread failure in safeguarding is not a significant part of its history? Please can you undo your deletion, or explain your reasons why. In which case you should seek to address the same issue with the Chichester Diocese page as well? I suspect all the editors who have contibuted to that section would be surprised to see their work deleted in such a sudden way without question. Joelionheart (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think this needs to be on the article talk page so that all editors can weigh in on it. (And as a handy helper - new sections on talk pages go at the bottom, not the top of talk pages). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Scarlett Johansson
Hello. Can you please schedule another article on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 30, 2019 instead of Scarlett Johansson's? I have another date planned for her main page appearance. Thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: What anniversary are you thinking of? I double checked both Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending before scheduling ... it is greatly helpful if folks who want a specific date would use those to give schedulers a heads up. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe on the day of release of her own solo Black Widow film (who knows when that’s gonna happen though). If not that, then maybe on her 35th birthday, but the former is the top priority. FrB.TG (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts? FrB.TG (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think we don't have the least clue when that will be - it's rather difficult to hold off indefinitely on an article when we have a dwindling number of articles that haven't been on the main page. What do the other @TFA coordinators coords think? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, a definite date is fine, otherwise we don't really have the luxury of just sitting on articles when the supply is insufficient for TFA anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, can you at least postpone it to her 35th birthday then? The current date makes no sense. FrB.TG (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think we don't have the least clue when that will be - it's rather difficult to hold off indefinitely on an article when we have a dwindling number of articles that haven't been on the main page. What do the other @TFA coordinators coords think? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Short description
Hello. Has there been a discussion regarding edits such as this? Why is "16th and 17th-century" needed? Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- is the description inaccurate? As a general rule, anchoring a subject into a time period is useful for identification and a fuller appreciation of the subject. Almost every biography I add a short description to, I include this sort of chronological information. You are the first person to ever raise it as a possible issue. And I generally add a short description to every article that’s appearing on the main page linked from On this Day...and have for over six months as part of general cleanup of those articles. It’s obviously not disturbing other editors...Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
BEF et al.
What does { { authority control} } do? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
You have mail
Hi Ealdgyth. Since you don't like talkpage templates, and since I don't know how to place one anyway, I'll let you know without the template that you presumably have an email from me sent on May 22 or May 23. I have some concerns about your Wikipedia-related conduct in the recent AE case involving myself. I would be willing to discuss these on-wiki, but this would be at best inconvenient under the terms of the IBAN currently in effect. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I got your email, but I do not discuss wiki matters off wiki. And, no, I think your best option is to drop the whole matter that lead to the Iban, so in the interest of helping you with that goal, I don’t think it’s in your interest to discuss. My advice is to move on, and to learn to let matters drop when discussions have reached an impasse. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice, which I have taken under consideration. I have at the present time, however, concerns that I wish to raise about your Wikipedia-related conduct, and perhaps I need to bring to your attention the unanimous ArbCom decision on COMMUNICATION [1] and the further policy WP:ADMINACCT in this regard. I understand, sympathize and to a large degree concur with your attitude regarding on-wiki vs. email, but nonetheless point out that "while [administrators] are not required to enable or reply to email", "best practices are for [them] to have email enabled", thus indicating that email is officially encouraged, perhaps particularly for cases such as this one. If you do not want to use email, I will have to request a modification of the IBAN restrictions for your or my talk page. If, as you indicate, you are sincerely interested in helping me drop the matter, then I think it best that we discuss this. Thank you again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- you are aware that I did not take any admin action in regards to your filing. I commented, but it was GoldenRing (talk · contribs) who imposed the IBAN. If I had taken any admin action with regards to you, then, yes, I would be willing to communicate through email. However, since I did not take any such action, the provisions you bring up don’t really apply. I suggest that you take your concerns up with GoldenRing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure your participation didn't constitute an action ("a thing done; an act") – see [2] ("this assuming your participation constituted an action"). The provision at WP:ADMINACCT, however, does not concern merely "administrative actions", but rather "Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions", which are to be justified when needed. Furthermore, even at COMMUNICATION [3] the expectation "to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues" is only "especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions", indicating that the expectation is not limited to actions, however defined. I am in contact with GoldenRing and aware of who did what, thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- frankly, I have not the slightest idea what you think you need to discuss with me. At this point, frankly, it’s looking like you’re doing much the same refusing to drop the stick at this talk page. People will disagree with things, and at some point the best thing to do is agree to disagree and I’m rapidly reaching that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Stick or not, agreeing to disagree or not, the provisions are explicit and clear. If you don't know what I think I need to discuss with you, the simplest thing would be to ask. As it is, you are refusing to respond to queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and to justify them. You are failing to communicate and explain your actions. You are not constructively discussing the issues. You are not responding promptly and fully, or apparently at all, to good-faith concerns about your actions. This may be noted in addition to your AE statement itself. For the last time, I think it would be better if you and I discussed this, whether you are presently aware of what I want to discuss or not. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you think it has bearing on your IBAN actually tells me quite a lot. If you disagree with my reading of the situation that lead to the IBAN, well, that was my reading of the situation. (And, yes, I read both the threads at MOS and elsewhere before commenting). The thing to do when you have an IBAN is to walk away from the situation and drop it. Don’t think about that other editor. Don’t try to discuss with third parties the situation that led to the IBAN or anything peripheral to the situation. I’m trying to help you here by not perpetuating the situation that got both of you into trouble. Let it go. That’s my sincere advice to you...it’s not worth the effort. If you think my advice isn’t good, you’re free to do whatever, but I can guarantee that most editors are going to see this discussion as a refusal to let things go, which is what got you into this trouble. I would love it if you applied your obvious skills to helping improve the encyclopedia instead of worrying about other editors conduct. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your advice. Unfortunately it doesn't respond to my concerns, and "I read both the threads at MOS and elsewhere before commenting" (which nobody ever doubted) does not – at least to my mind – constitute an adequate discussion of your conduct and of the outstanding issues. I have nothing to add to what I wrote before, other than that I will likely complain about your conduct, whether informally to GoldenRing or otherwise. Telling me what you think I should do does not fulfill the WP directives in regard to communication and accountability. This is all I have to say for now, so do not expect a further reply from me unless you are willing to discuss the matter seriously and with a due measure of respect. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you think it has bearing on your IBAN actually tells me quite a lot. If you disagree with my reading of the situation that lead to the IBAN, well, that was my reading of the situation. (And, yes, I read both the threads at MOS and elsewhere before commenting). The thing to do when you have an IBAN is to walk away from the situation and drop it. Don’t think about that other editor. Don’t try to discuss with third parties the situation that led to the IBAN or anything peripheral to the situation. I’m trying to help you here by not perpetuating the situation that got both of you into trouble. Let it go. That’s my sincere advice to you...it’s not worth the effort. If you think my advice isn’t good, you’re free to do whatever, but I can guarantee that most editors are going to see this discussion as a refusal to let things go, which is what got you into this trouble. I would love it if you applied your obvious skills to helping improve the encyclopedia instead of worrying about other editors conduct. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Stick or not, agreeing to disagree or not, the provisions are explicit and clear. If you don't know what I think I need to discuss with you, the simplest thing would be to ask. As it is, you are refusing to respond to queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and to justify them. You are failing to communicate and explain your actions. You are not constructively discussing the issues. You are not responding promptly and fully, or apparently at all, to good-faith concerns about your actions. This may be noted in addition to your AE statement itself. For the last time, I think it would be better if you and I discussed this, whether you are presently aware of what I want to discuss or not. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- frankly, I have not the slightest idea what you think you need to discuss with me. At this point, frankly, it’s looking like you’re doing much the same refusing to drop the stick at this talk page. People will disagree with things, and at some point the best thing to do is agree to disagree and I’m rapidly reaching that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure your participation didn't constitute an action ("a thing done; an act") – see [2] ("this assuming your participation constituted an action"). The provision at WP:ADMINACCT, however, does not concern merely "administrative actions", but rather "Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions", which are to be justified when needed. Furthermore, even at COMMUNICATION [3] the expectation "to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues" is only "especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions", indicating that the expectation is not limited to actions, however defined. I am in contact with GoldenRing and aware of who did what, thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- you are aware that I did not take any admin action in regards to your filing. I commented, but it was GoldenRing (talk · contribs) who imposed the IBAN. If I had taken any admin action with regards to you, then, yes, I would be willing to communicate through email. However, since I did not take any such action, the provisions you bring up don’t really apply. I suggest that you take your concerns up with GoldenRing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice, which I have taken under consideration. I have at the present time, however, concerns that I wish to raise about your Wikipedia-related conduct, and perhaps I need to bring to your attention the unanimous ArbCom decision on COMMUNICATION [1] and the further policy WP:ADMINACCT in this regard. I understand, sympathize and to a large degree concur with your attitude regarding on-wiki vs. email, but nonetheless point out that "while [administrators] are not required to enable or reply to email", "best practices are for [them] to have email enabled", thus indicating that email is officially encouraged, perhaps particularly for cases such as this one. If you do not want to use email, I will have to request a modification of the IBAN restrictions for your or my talk page. If, as you indicate, you are sincerely interested in helping me drop the matter, then I think it best that we discuss this. Thank you again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
ARC request
Ealdgyth - you are a middle ground here. Could you please look into examples 1-6, by Poeticbent/sock, in the ARC case:
- Loosmark sock (+Poeticbent), IcewhizFix - Describing a Polish pogrom against Jews,[1][2] as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews - see AE determining this was a hoax. Note VM loudly asserted restoring this was non-actionable. Also see: Dr. Morris S. Whitcup on Wikipedia's articles
- Poeticbent+Loosmark sock, IceWhizFix - Local poles burn 600-2000 Jews alive in barn,[1][3] described as Jewish oppression of Poles followed by Germans killing Jews.
- Poeticbent,Loosmark sock,Poeticbent,IceWhizFix: related to 1+2, obfuscation of local killings+explusion+Jedwabne.[1][4]
- Poeticbent,IceWhizFix - extermination camp for Jews,[5] described as
"intended to kill Jews and Poles from all nearby towns and villages"(Polish citation in article: "Jews".[6])- PoeticbentBiałystok,PoeticbentHistoryOfTheJews,PoeticbentCommons - IceWhizFixBiałystok,IceWhizFixHistoryOfTheJews,IceWhizFixCommons - "Jewish welcoming banner" in 1939 image captions (extended discussion, caption offwiki) - actually election notice to the People's Council of Western Belarus in 1941
- Loosmark sock,IceWhizFix - describes the "Polish operation" (one of multiple NKVD national sweeps) as
"the genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union", misstating named historians[7] and using a dubious source. Contrast academic sources:[8][9][10].
References
- ^ a b c Bender, Sara (2013). "Not Only in Jedwabne: Accounts of the Annihilation of the Jewish Shtetlach in North-eastern Poland in the Summer of 1941". Holocaust Studies. 19 (1): 1–38. doi:10.1080/17504902.2013.11087369.
- ^ Spector, Shmuel; Wigoder, Geoffrey; Wigoder, Research Associate Institute of Contemporary Jewry Geoffrey (2001). The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: Seredina-Buda-Z. NYU Press. p. 1230. ISBN 9780814793787.
- ^ The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, Geoffrey P. Megargee, Martin C. Dean, and Mel Hecker, Volume II, part A, pages 943-944.
- ^ The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CAMPS AND GHETTOS, 1933–1945, Geoffrey P. Megargee, Martin Dean, and Mel Hecker, Volume II, part A, page 900.
- ^ Chelmno at USHMM
- ^ "SS Sonderkommando". Obóz zagłady w Chełmnie n/Nerem. Obozy zagłady. Retrieved 2013-05-10.
- ^ Michael Ellman, "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited." Amsterdam School of Economics. PDF file
- ^ Martin, Terry. "The origins of Soviet ethnic cleansing." The Journal of Modern History 70.4 (1998): 813-861.
- ^ Morris, James. "The Polish terror: spy mania and ethnic cleansing in the great terror." Europe-Asia Studies 56.5 (2004): 751-766.
- ^ Petrov, Nikita, and Arsenii Roginskii. "The “Polish Operation” of the NKVD, 1937–8." Stalin’s Terror. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2003. 153-172.
In particular 1-5. I can e-mail you the refs that are not online. For all the acrimony in the topic area - much of the content that is being "fought over" has been generated by Poeticbent/Loosmark. It shouldn't be hard for you to verify here (both off my references, and off others - e.g. Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms on the Eve of the Holocaust (Kopstein & Wittenberg) is recent work here, and older works on the towns in Łomża County with pogroms before/after Jedwabne are widely available (following Gross(2000) - this is well written (and was covered previously - e.g. Radziłów was better known than Jedwabne prior to Gross)). For all the discussion here on conduct, what really matters in content (in particular when it rises to this level). Knee-jerk responses in ANI (which is not suited for a topic that requires more than 2-3 of an editor's attention span to evaluated) are just going to be one big free for all. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- I really wasn't kidding when I said I am busy. We are moving from Central Illinois to Central Wisconsin - with a library of over 10,000 books, a large amount of stuff we sell online, a number of hobbies, plus 8 cats, a dog, and 7 horses and all the equipment that THOSE take. And we're moving ourselves, not hiring it done. And I've still got work for various places that I do freelance. I really really don't have the time to dig into things quickly. Go ahead and send the pdfs, but I cannot promise anything quickly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wow - I'm terrified at my move at the end of the year, and it isn't nearly as far nor close to as much kit - and I'll probably have help. I guess you can literally mean it when you say it rains cats and dogs (and horses). Bounced the mail over. I didn't send the stuff that is available online freely (hyperlinked in the refs) or the USHMM encyclopedia that I assume you have (and is too big for e-mail, I think). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Eek! Best of luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Administrator changes
Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
Technical news
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
- The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
- The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.
Notice of arbitration
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
|
Editor of the Week | |
| Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your creation of excellent content. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate Ealdgyth for Editor of the Week. They are a content creator par excellence, with 62 FAs and 109 GAs to their name. And 100 DYKs, 2 FLs, a FT and more Four and Million Awards than I could count. And has reviewed 220 GANs. They have made over 125,000 edits. They are an administrator. They are very active on WikiProject Good articles - maintaining the mechanism which allows the GAN process to work. "Wow!" you say, and well you might. But that is all by the bye. The actual reason I think they are worthy of being editor of the week is the work they do to ensure that a worthy and appropriate Featured Article of the Day (TFA) appears each and every day on the main page. The main page is Wikipedia's shop window, and the first thing a browser sees is the TFA. Placed there by Ealdgyth. They sort out a balanced set of articles, bearing in mind special dates (1 April, 25 December) and requests for articles to appear on certain dates (subject's birthdays etc). They check them for quality. They physically fit them into the schedule. They check the blurb (the bit that actually appears on the front page) for quality and length. They deal with queries. Two to three full days of work each month. Knowing that 20 million people will be viewing any error. And all of this for literally no thanks at all. Possibly the most under-rated editor on Wikipedia. This nomination was seconded by 7&6=thirteen with the comment, "Good work consistently done without fanfare" and by User:Adityavagarwal who praised Ealdgyth as "One of the most prolific editor on Wikipedia!"
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! I also live in Central Illinois near Varna. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Ralph Neville scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Ralph Neville article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 26, 2019... Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is King of troy and WP:SEEALSO. Jayjg (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)