Jump to content

User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

I think User:The Rambling Man is stalking me

We had a disagreement some time ago at the Simple English Wikipedia, and, ever since, he's been trying to do his level best to get me banned or blocked on this project. For example, a few months ago, he deleted my comments from a third editor's talk page, It's utterly inexplicable why he would throw in in the Philip discussion after you No-Vio-ed it, except to try and get me to do something to justify a block. He even went to the Philip talk page and parroted Agricolae's nonsense just to piss me off. If you look at his recent edit summaries, they're not about Philip, they're about me and his desire to see me banned, which is why I think he's got a vendetta. He claims he's thrown in because he saw it on his watchlist, but I think he chose to engage on that issue in particular because he saw my name on it. I asked him to stop, but he reverted my request on his talk page and threatened to take me to ANI. FWIW, pretty much at the end of the rope with Agricolae too...they keep claiming I "didn't participate" in a discussion...I started! pbp 22:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

SOV, your close and rationale was very weak and sets an incredibly poor precedent for individuals to close their own "behind closed doors" discussion, implement their own preferred changes, and then edit war to protect it. It's been noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Do us all a favor: stop threatening everybody. pbp 04:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Do me a favour, stop pinging me and stop leaving me messages, since you've already been asked to stop, what you're doing now is pure and simple harassment. I think we know where that leads. Also noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If you don't want me asking you to stop stalking me...don't stalk me. It's funny that you're accussing me of harassment when it's crystal clear that you followed me to the 3RR, to Agricolae's talk page, and to the Philip talk page. Watchlist, schmatlist: you picked a page I was editing to attempt to BAIT me into something you could use to clamor for a block. You're already clamoring for it now. It's apparently OK for you to BAIT me and clamor for me to be blocked, but not for me to ask you to stop. Not on, sorry. pbp 04:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No, you don't get it. You're not listening. Events pop up on something called a "watchlist". Often you're involved. Rarely I'll get involved because I note something completely unjust has occurred (e.g. this situation of a bogus discussion, an involved closure, a poor admin decision at EW etc). You cannot ping me, you cannot leave me messages, and you need to start redacting your false and unfounded accusations. I will not be engaging with you anywhere except at ANI now. All of this is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope that's true and you won't be following me around ANYWHERE. What puzzles me is this: you could've easily discerned I was involved in this issue. You don't like dealing with me, especially on your talk page. It's reasonable to expect that, when you deal with another editor, a talk page comment would arise. Why not just take a pass? pbp 05:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Bonadya and User:Bonadea

What's going on with that? User:Bonadya's behavior suggests sock, but who? pbp 15:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nsmutte I presume. Already blocked. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I guess my questions are a) why that revert? Why remove that 3RR discussion? What point with whom was the sock trying to prove, and to a certain extent b) Why did real Bonadea use BANREVERT? Using it in that manner is not something I'm particularly familiar with. pbp 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It's highly likely to be a sitebanned LTA individual who targets Bonadea, Purplebackpack89, hence WP:BANREVERT. I don't really want to discuss the details, because I think they enjoy that too much, sorry. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

Request for redaction

Would you please consider redacting this version of Early life and career of Barack Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=852886158&oldid=852384718 It fits criteria #2 under WP:CRD. Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to redact that. It's too ludicrous to be taken seriously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)It's not like there's anything wrong with it, anyways. I have it on good authority that 2-11% of the male population is a fan. And I'm sure some portion of the female population, as well. The only thing really questionable is the emotional maturity of anyone who thinks it's a good insult. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

re: AIV

Hey! While I agree there's a BLP issue, I'm a bit concerned by your block of 2601:642:4001:d1b2:2022:3cab:320a:c1b5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) while they were also trying to get a third opinion on other channels. Both users were edit warring in my opinion. -- Luk talk 21:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:3RRNO#EX7. John acted appropriately to keep poorly sourced negative BLP info out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

Why are you tampering with Steven Kunes? The simple edit I made is far from whitewashing. It is appropriate to mention some of his legal issues, but that information should be later in the article. Kunes has a body of work that is notable. You need to undo your changes to my edits or your slandering is going to be brought to the attention of Wikipedia legal (this will be done by myself and several other editors). What you're doing to Kunes' page is very unprofessional — you're acting like an editing piranha, not a professional editor. Undo your last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs)

My words to you are not a threat. My request is simply that you refrain from slandering Kunes. I have no vendetta here - just give the guy a break. You've been a Wikipedia editor for a long time so I'm sure you agree that his legal issues do not summarize his life and should be mentioned further down the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George David NH (talk • contribs)

@George David NH:"Your slandering is going to be brought to the attention of Wikipedia legal" sure sounds like a legal threat to me. How else would you suggest that this phrase be interpreted? SQLQuery me! 21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I award you this well-deserved barnstar not only for your diligence and the time you spent improving the Fairfield, Ohio and Conesus Lake articles, but for the attention and time that you gave to the two users and their concerns after reading the messages and explanations they left on my user talk page.

While many (if not most) editors would simply skip past the messages they left and without giving their concerns much thought, you didn't. Instead, you took the time to read their messages while I was away (thank you!), looked beyond the fact that the editors were very inexperienced and very new (or even better, you didn't even look or take that information into account or consideration at all), and you used the information provided to remove inaccurate and unreferenced content from the articles mentioned. This is the exact kind of attention and behavior that I do my upmost best to always demonstrate and reflect towards everyone who asks me for help, and it made me very happy to see you do so as well.

For listening to the concerns expressed by new users, using the information to fix problematic content within the articles mentioned, and for leaving a message on one of the user's talk pages thanking them for their message - I award you this barnstar. Thank you very much for doing what you did. Keep up the excellent work and know that your time and effort did not go unnoticed and was greatly appreciated :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Assault weapon

Assault weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You declined a semi-protection request on this article, noting that PC is sufficient. I did not and do not see any current protection on the article at all in the protection log; am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Pending Changes log is separate from the Protection log. If you check All Public Logs for that page, you'll see that pending changes is the first (bottom) item listed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Thanks for pointing that out! VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
My pleasure. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The news is loose

They admitted the obvious fact that they are a sock evading a block on their talk page. I’m not a fan of hair-trigger sock blocks but the quacking is pretty loud here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured, I just wasn't in the mood to argue the point on the basis of a single edit. Right now, at least. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment re my comment

I failed to understand your comment re my comment. Perhaps you could edit it to show what exactly you thought I missed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sanction

Hello,

I have several questions. First of all, what was disruptive about my edit? Removing normal development is merely removing something that is obvious. Of course if a women doesn't go through normal sexual development, then she cannot become pregnant. This is obvious. In addition, the comment that women usually give birth during this time is given undue weight. The article does not include that women usually have long hair, as neither of these things are at all relevant. Userwoman (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

See hysterectomy for a fairly obvious example of why that was a Really Bad Edit. Writing it that way in the first place might not have been a bad thing. Changing it the way you did, on the other hand, indicates that you're not ready to be editing articles on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What should I have done differently? Userwoman (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton "Edit War"

I stand by my original assertion that the term "Ireland, United Kingdom" or the more recent and spurious "Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom" is both redundant and without correlation elsewhere on Wiki. Tom Crean, Shackleton's right-hand man is described (correctly) as being born in Ireland (without political additions). This ridiculous qualifier has no relevance, and is transparently proprietorial. Nobody is denying that Shackleton was Anglo-Irish, but he was born in Ireland (a country that was notionally, but not practically part of the UK, and was never described as such, even then). Ireland is enough. It should surely be left at that. Mike Galvin (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't argue it here, argue it there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding recent block

Hey, just so you know, that account you just blocked - User:The Lord's Prayer was/is a vandalism only account and should have been blocked indefinitley. I reported them as such, so please change the block. Thank you for your time. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Most probably. They might just have been overly enthusiastic. We'll see what happens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

More Re: Catholic League

The reference you site is curiously non-encyclopedic for a book that calls itself an "encyclopedia". For example, there have been several "Catholic Leagues" over time; Donohue's iteration merely being the most recent.

Unfortunately the information presented in this WP article is factually, terminally flawed. In your zeal to preserve the text as it stands, you appear wiling to take as fact statements from a soft-bound publication by... whom? And overlook sourced edits... why?

Perhaps you can extend toward vetting assertions in this article the same editorial enthusiasm you've shone upon my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puna Dave (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Sjacksonn01 NLT block

Greetings! You blocked Sjacksonn01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for legal threats. The user has since requested an unblock after indicating that they have withdrawn any potential legal threat.

I have some concerns about this user's behaviour otherwise; I am considering an unblock on the condition that the user not attempt to move Draft:Sean P. Jackson to mainspace or otherwise create a new article in mainspace about Jackson, broadly construed for one month. Hopefully this will get the user focused on improving the draft and working with other users in a collaborative fashion to get the article ready, instead of the confrontational approach they've taken to date. So, two questions:

  1. Do you feel an unblock is appropriate here?
  2. Do you feel the ban on moving the draft/creating new articles is appropriate?

Since it's your block, yours is the first perspective I want to add to mine on this. Please let me know what you think. —C.Fred (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: My block was purely over the chilling effect language. As that is resolved, the block should be lifted. I would urge that the editor actually read those links we've been pointing them to before trying to edit any more, though, or the unblock won't last long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B10A:3C56:247:1D74:200E:BA8 appears to be a sock of Special:Contributions/173.73.10.191, who you blocked for edit warring. Both are in the Northern Virginia area. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like their IP has already been changed. Would semi-protection be a better solution? - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You can add Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B10A:3C56:247:1D74:200E:BA8 to that sock puppet list for block evasion. This user seems to be changing IPs quickly to continue his edit war at 2018 Horizon Air Q400 incident. Perhaps a range block and a longer period are required, plus semi? - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for the wrong reason, perhaps

Not sure if my ping reached you or not (it initially had a timestamp but no signature). If not, in short, I believe you made a mistake in blocking me for BLP violation rather than disruptive editing, edit warring or something else. I think I've presented clarity on my actual good intent and dumb error at my Talk Page and David Hogg's. If you could review it and alter the Block Log to reflect a lesser charge, I'd appreciate it. No hard feelings on your initial judgment (I can see how it looked like something it wasn't), but I regularly edit BLPs and don't want an apparent violation of such to haunt my permanent record. Any such possibility? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Catholic League

This listing erroneously furthers the notion that there is a connection between Blum's "The Catholic League" and Donohue's "Catholic League", where there exists none. Also, there exist several instances wherein this "blurring of lines" between the two simply reduces much of the remaining content to nonsense.

Per Jesuit historian Fr. John W. Padbereg, SJ (presently residing in Dallas, TX), "[Regarding the] CL of today, there is no relationship of the SJ with any such existing group" [from personal e-mail dated 8/10/2018].

My edits to the text present facts surrounding the establishment of these two very different entities. Further, they serve to illustrate that while CL claims not to be a mouthpiece for the Church, this position is not reflected by the texts of its online instruments.

I make no attempt to change the subject of the listing, merely correct some important errors within the content.

Another Sealioning RfC

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry i did not read your comment properly and wrongly thought your were not reply to me. Not sure if the is an easier way to send an apology on Wikipedia. Need sleep. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sleep is good. Not that I'd know or anything. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Socking

Sarek, you blocked Special:Contributions/173.73.10.191 for disruptive editing. Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B11C:3472:6C9C:78B5:A3F6:490B has restored an exit the original made to another editor's talk page. Could you look into it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B10B:EC4A:16E7:D858:DE2C:D72C. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B10D:7FC7:3D2C:BE4F:E7E1:6964. IP hoppers are so much fun. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Understood. I had hoped I could work towards repairing the damage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI redaction

No diffs, no links to page histories, no links to pages with lots of edits by this user, no links to anything else, and no instructions on alternate ways of finding the alleged offenses. WP:NPA permits no exceptions, and I can't see any way that someone could argue for this being an IAR case. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend I think you've taken WP:NPA to an extreme in this case. Editors regularly post concerns to AN/I, and when the diffs are lacking they are generally requested. I've never seen an admin redact a complaint in this manner.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, the policy leaves no room for exceptions. It's not my fault if other admins don't care to enforce this part of the policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A user is removing your content on the Asia Argento article

Please join the discussion here, wether or not facts published in New York Times are relevant for the article. A user is trying to remove the sexual assualt claims published in the New York Times, because he doesn't think it is relevant.--APStalk 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Albin Schmitt Last week Simonm223 described the Sarah Jeong controversy as "a silly side-show cooked up by channers [ie 4chan] to get her fired for being a woman of colour while online", and opposed inclusion of any information that makes Sarah look bad, while supporting any which makes her look better.
Here Simonm223 is at it again. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be selectively and arbitrarily protecting influential women in this way. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Threatening to block my profile

This user has repeatedly reverted edits of mine and continuously used the excuse that I had not gained consensus before editing. I agree with him that editing should gain a consensus before being made official, however I have bee reverting edits that had gain NO CONSENSUS and were arbitrarily done and then upheld. I am very curious as to why SarekofVulcan was not so keen to revert these edits. perhaps they are more in line with his opinion. I have been civil throughout but the behaviour of Sarek is akin to a small child throwing a tantrum. Zulu1963 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article in question, as it appeared on 2 December 2010 uses the BCE/CE style. Since then (8 years), it has been edited several hundred times by a large number of editors, none of whom felt the need to edit war over it. Your argument that the article was first written with the BC/AD style is nonsensical: articles as they are first written often contain a large number of mistakes and errors and the very nature of Wikipedia is meant to encourage constant change, driven by consensus, to all articles. If you wish to make a sweeping change, such as reverting to the AD/BC style, you must first propose this change at talk, and gain consensus for it. Only then can you make the edit and expect not to be reverted by anyone who disagrees with you. You now have two editors disagreeing with you. You do not have consensus to make this change at this time. Take it to talk, or leave it alone. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Albin Schmitt. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Albin Schmitt (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am Ed.

I was blocked from editing your page on Blaire White for repeatedly, trying to add information on the YouTube article. I wish to add the information on her with the source of it without any issue. Since I am inexperience on Wikipedia, it might explained why I'm tried to add it on one of the existing articles rather than making my owned and had issues with adding the source. Are you alright with this and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot add unsourced, or even poorly sourced, information to a biography article. I have posted a summary of our most important policies on your talk page: I suggest reading them carefully before trying to edit again. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

But I already brought up that I tried to add a source to it which is this (apology. I forgotten that I had another). https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtZgDHKhJTrlAPn2w02iW9AZKHhMqOQUs https://robbinsn.wixsite.com/crayzeehair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A source is not sufficient. Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Follow that link to see what you have to have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How are the sources aren't sufficient? Besides, the sources about her being attack by left-winged extremists for wearing a Make America Great Again hat were misformed since both she and her boyfriend faked it (even, titling the video of it as a "social experiment", commonly, used by YouTubers who make prank videos such as Sam Pepper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Short form: don't source statements of facts to YouTube videos and self-published websites. Long form: read the links I gave you that explain why, in great detail. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to send the video to give you more information on it. Dumb on my part for not knowing that Wikipedia don't welcome links from other performs such as YouTube. But you don't have to be disrespectful about it. I already read the page you constantly telling me to send. So, stop worrying about it. You still, haven't explain why the sources of mine are not sufficient and why are the sources on the social experiment allow despite being misformed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Rick James (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have explained it. If my explanation isn't sufficient, you might have better luck at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which specializes in helping new editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked your buddy about it and instead of helping, he acted like a teenage girl. So, enjoy your page with misformed sources while unwelcoming newcomers like who are trying to help, called them assholes.

Hypocrisy re 3rr

[[1]] makes interesting reading. I guess you believed in 3RR then? Pinkbeast (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a point here somewhere, I know it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You expected 3RR to apply then. Couldn't you just have saved your time by closing your own report with "appears to be a content dispute", since that is your policy now? Or is it only when someone reverts 5 times in one hour that 3RR doesn't apply to them? Pinkbeast (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Still not entirely certain which article you're referring to here - Shackleton again? In any case, expecting me to react the same way now that I did 7 years ago is... unwise. Even if the situation were the same. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes. 7 years ago you thought 3RR was a rule, rather than something to endorse violations of. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:IHATEILLINOISNAZIS

Nah. Because that would just encourage people to try to run them over in their '74 Dodge Monacos. Nazis don't deserve to be run over. They should be taken out by hand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of this section in a high pitched, nasally voice with a haughty tone

Meh, I'm Sarek of Vulcan, I'm not content to rest upon my son's accomplishments and I have to prove I'm better than everyone else by reverting fun comments just because they would have caused any humorless editors reading them to go into a conniption and get all bent out of shape. Look at me, I'm important and officious. Meh.

I hope you got a bit of a chuckle out of it. It was really only intended for the first person to notice it. Would have been pretty funny if you noticed my last edit summary and gave me a 20-minute block per WP:CIR. No, that's not a hint, I'm just saying. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are some who think that Sarek is a better programmer than Spock, so nyah nyah nyah. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, I would say that I'd never read any of her writing, except, on looking through her article, it turns out I have. And I loved it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I still have that in a box with the rest of my Duane collection, but even if the disc still works, I don't have a computer than can actually read MFS... Some of the races from KA later showed up in Doctor's Orders, btw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I had on on the C64, but it's long gone by now. My dad used to buy anything ST related because he knew how much I loved that show, so I had quite a collection of ST games. My earliest memories are of staying up late, sitting on my dad's lap and watching old reruns of TOS in his home office. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a test. Etc. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm Contesting the fast archiving...

Because a bad joke deserves to be beaten to death. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I have connections on Federal Hill who could arrange that... -141.114.28.219 (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
o O There are people on Federal Hill capable of getting something done? That's news to me... Oh wait, I was thinking of Capitol Hill. Nevermind.
P.S. check out {{fbdb}}. It looks like this. [FBDB] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with MP. My God it was only 156,933 bytes long. What were you thinking? There was a lot more than could have been said ... Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

DiHydrogen Monoxide Parody Page

Thanks for the clean up, sorry to not have done it correctly the first time, it was my first name change and I was following a guide that clearly missed a bit. I appreciate the help. Squatch347 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I think that's the stuff I use to clean up my acrylic paints with. Nasty stuff, that. I hear every serial killer ever convicted drank the stuff on a daily basis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For doing the right thing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. Doug Weller talk 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for review

Good morning Sarek,

Can you review the recent reversions by Falconfly in the links below? He seems to be ignoring the talk page discussion and has violated the 3RR rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vohu_Manah&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seraph&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamsiel&action=history

Squatch347 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Falconfly hasn't violated the 3RR rule, but is edit warring after I warned them, so I've blocked. It's good that you've opened discussion on the talk pages, but until you get consensus there, I would consider further reverts on those articles to be edit warring as well, and would block you as well. Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll see if I can gin up a conversation over there. Thanks for the help. Squatch347 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

AN

I posted your block of Michael Hardy at the admin board - I support the block and I think you need air cover for this as it may well be considered controversial. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have unblocked Michael following consensus at his talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for undoing my edit on Medeis' talk page, I messed it up unintentionally. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 12:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry for your loss. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring/ownership question

Hi Sarek, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, we had a recent similar discussion and I wanted to get your input on this before moving forward.

I'm talking to an editor who seems to be reverting any change to a page that his isn't his own. We currently have two edits that are agreed to by four editors with only this one editor dissenting with a moving the goal post strategy. At this point we've been trying to address his concerns for months to no success. Suggestions? Squatch347 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&action=history

Page ownership diffs:

Diffs of him blocking content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=860053787&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=860051132&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=858416016&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=859501927&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=856414461&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=856263596&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=855924257&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=853729087&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=852737101&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=861185000&diffmode=source

  • Let me add: I have also been following this. The editor in question also added a criteria to the lede of this article without consensus, and then immediately began pointing to that criteria to justify removing any addition to this list. In fact, the editor in question was claiming that this criteria existed even before they added it. See here for the addition, and see the talk page for where the editor kept referring to it, both before and after. I think I'll take this to ANI if you're not inclined to handle it. BTW: there is a canvassing accusation, but it ignores the fact that I'd previously been involved in the discussion. I wasn't brought in from outside, and would have weighed in sooner rather than later, in any case, as the problems Squatch is describing were obvious to me, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to handle it, but I have protected it at WP:THEWRONGVERSION for a couple of days while you work things out at the talk page and/or ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think ANI is the proper venue, because Squatch has been trying for days on talk with getting nowhere. Besides, it'll give me the opportunity to whine about which version you protected the page on ;). Thanks for the help. (And yes, I know, I shouldn't have made that last revert). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, can you add the AfD template to the page with the following rationale:
Article is a list of trivia by definition; it has inconsistent and sometimes very poor sourcing. Despite being AfD'ed previously, sourcing has not improved mostly because the broad variety of subjects and mass-appeal nature of explicit sourcing rules out many academic and high-quality sources. Article is highly unlikely to reach a workable state at any point in the future, and well-sourced entries can be moved to the appropriate article.
Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Medeis

I was shocked and saddened to see a death notice for Medeis, who last edited seven months ago but who I had hoped was merely on a break. Do you have any idea what happened? I know Medeis had a number of health issues, but wasn't aware of anything life-threatening. I would ask the user Miss Bono except Miss Bono seems not to be editing regularly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: no, I'm sorry, I was just giving admin support to the reporter. :( SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I was about to send an email to Miss Bono, but the note connected with it indicates it may not work. So I guess I'll leave a note on Miss Bono's talk page and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Donna Strickland

I understand why you protected Donna Strickland—I would have done it myself—but given that five edit requests have accumulated in the last four hours, I thought it'd be less disruptive to remove the full protection and deal with any further edit warring with reverts. Hope you don't mind. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes Made to Doris Twitchell Allen

Hello! I made changed to the Doris Twitchell Allen page which you reverted. I am aware that I was unable to link to a source - which is academically blasphemous. I am unable to make a direct link to the source because you must be an initiated member of Tri Delta to access the sisterhood directory. Doris Twitchell Allen was initiated to the Alpha Kappa chapter at the University of Maine in 1920. She was included in the University of Michigan's Michiganensian in 1935 as a Delta Delta Delta member in city. Below is the source link that highlights her name in the document.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hRriAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT454&lpg=PT454&dq=%22doris+twitchell%22+delta+delta+delta+-village+university+of+michigan&source=bl&ots=Ybv0OL2J_t&sig=8e1TYcixGKVePn0GXPonDGhOGLU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirt_j-0vDdAhVimeAKHW94DfgQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22doris%20twitchell%22%20delta%20delta%20delta%20-village%20university%20of%20michigan&f=false

I ask that you revert your changes as she is a historic member of the Alpha Kappa chapter and it would be a significant piece of history that the Alpha Kappa Tri Deltas would appreciate being able to share with future potential new members. Not everyone has a set of buildings named after them, and being that it's only been a few years since Tri Delta came back to UMaine it's important to us that this piece of history be known.

Thank you for understanding


UMaine Class of 2017 & founding member of the reinstalled Alpha Kappa chapter of Tri Delta.

BiancaBeland (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Bianca Beland

Reopen disscution

The Casual Playing is not Notable and all the article related to it must be deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casual_game

Can you reopen it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.134.86 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In a word, no. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
As info the user opened a second copy of this. I've closed and reverted all the tagging, and given a final warning. They have additionally been warned about editing while logged out. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

  • Library Card translation
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Pegasus Award for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pegasus Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Award 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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LilyPond source

Template:LilyPond source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict?

Do you have any affiliation with the Pegasus Awards or the OVFF? Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bad faith and edit warring

Look, you're well over 3RR on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Award ‎. None of the things you've reverted can be considered vandalism. Your initial comment on that page saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" smacked of bad faith and you've now embodied that with multiple reverts of my edits, refusing to discuss any conflict / connection with the article and now engaging in projecting your bad faith in accusations of bad faith against me in your edit summaries.

None of this is cool and I strongly urge you to revert and answer the legitimate questions about connection(s) to this award and the organization that sponsors them.

There is obvious off-wiki canvassing going on with new users commenting and users who rarely edit Wikipedia suddenly commenting on this article.

Please take stock in your actions, honestly answer the questions about your WP:COI, revert your ad-hominem comments and act with dignity. Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Or, hey, you could stop accusing everyone who comments on the AfD of being canvassed and/or having a COI. Just a thought. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Toddst1, I'm with you on the AfD, but not on the rest. Let it slide--closing admins will know what to do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

  • OAWiki
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Schoenfeld spelling

Hi there, I have an e-mail correspondence with Paul Schoenfeld where I specifically address the spelling of his name. I am currently in the process of re-engraving his music and asked him for clarity when creating the new materials:

He states: "One thing: My legal name is actually Pinchas Schoenfeld (no "I"). People know me better by "Paul" and if you want to keep it's okay. But please use the last name SCHOENFELD. How the "I" got in there is a story."

Can provide the e-mail from him if desired. Seems like the current listing provides some clarity with both spellings, but nevertheless.

Thanks!

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau article

I can’t see how to navigate to ask for help from a specific editor. I don’t mind if there’s a decision made that I have a “conflict of interest” by Wikipedia editing definition, though I’m sure if my edits are scrutinized, you’d all see I am not and have not edited in added content or deletions that shows the intent of conflict of interest. I just need help connecting with an editor who doesn’t have defined conflict of interest. I can’t find message to editors who are commenting and active on this article, and I can’t find “help”. I wanted help years ago when I say inaccuracies in facts and poor referencing in the article, and I’ve seen continual bickering among editors as to terms and and base principles of what facts are and while I appreciate some who have dialogues on terms, I suggest that some editors of interest in this article step down and out of the editing, your opinions on my situation in conflict with the law are glaring, and not legally sound or backed. I have to live with the facts, and but there are real facts and they are not going to be found in mainstream media from articles and media sources from 20 some years ago as reference, unless referenced in the article as just that, skewed facts back then, that have since been correct, some of the facts anyway. My case and the running of innacurrate facts by the media, and because they didn’t have the facts at the time, sensationalized spin offs and quotes from people in gossip magazines, not ever corroborated, my husband and I have tried to speak out on this phenomenon, and still some of the original skewed facts surface when there’s a new article and background material is grabbed from original skewed media accounts. It’s really tragic actually. And yet there are accurate reliable sources; it takes someone to care to acknowledge the reliable sources. You have a body of scholars there at Wikipedia, scholars in ethics, and in law, where are they in the discussions and dialogue here? I have children, six. And I do not accept the inaccuracies and referencing of articles and media who themself are using a base of facts that stem from initial days of skewed sensational story running. 1) I was not diagnosed in any formal evaluation with Bipolar. Oh but it made for sensational news. But my husband was actually diagnosed with Bipolar disorder and those are records in the civil case. 2) Vili was not a student of mine when anything illegal happened. He was a former student of mine, and he was 13 years of age. There isn’t anything in any formal document that said he was a student of mine when any illiciate relationship came, nor does any formal document say he was 12 years of age. Do you understand that the media inserted those two facts because it sounded more egregious and shocking, and that there were many loud activist groups at the time the perpetuated those two made-up fact in the media, as a platform for their own agendas, (I’m not discounting their agendas, only the use of my case and inserting skewed facts to call attention to their agendas, their agendas are valid and they didn’t need and shouldn’t have skewed our personal/case facts to keep their agenda/cause), student of mine at the time, and age 12. Your introduction paragraph and the legal section are factually incorrect, and I’d be more that willing to point to the reliable sources for your referencing, I need help from someone there. So reach out please. And my name is Mary Fualaau, in my adult life I have not ever used Mary Kay, my teaching records and Seattle University records and anyone who knew me starting in Marriage with Steve Letourneau, they knew me as Mary Letourneau, and now as Mary Fualaau, nobody calls me Mary Kay, except the media, and my mother, and I was called Mary Kay as a child because my mother and her mother both also have the name Mary, it was to distinguish us at family gatherings. Interesting discussion you all had on my name. My “stage name” in the tabloid media is Mary Kay Letourneau, when someone calls out Mary Kay, I know they’ve read tabloids and they don’t know me at all. Even the court documents do not say Mary Kay, they say my name, Mary Letourneau, and so to initial articles state my name properly, Mary Letourneau. So perhaps you best change the title of your article to reflect the truth, my tabloid name is Mary Kay Letourneau. My teacher name and real life name to friends and colleagues at the time was Mary Letourneau. Have you ever seen in writing or heard a legal authority call me Mary Kay, of course not, you won’t find it in any legal reference, it has always correctly been “Mary” Letourneau, and for the past 14 years, Mary Fualaau. And though I do understand consistency in your article and confusion with the two last names of husbands, Letourneau and Fualaau. I leave the consistency on that to your knowing best, and I’d appreciate accuracy though in my first name, Mary. If you want to leave Mary Kay Letourneau as the title, I think it’s cheap, anyone can look my name up as Mary Letourneau, commonly know as. And if somewhere in the article you reference Mary Kay, do it properly, childhood name, and then popular tabloid name given. Okay, enough said. Please some caring and ethical editor contact me. Smmary (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the "Kay" in your name. I have resolved this subtle error. Mcfnord (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman 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. Safrolic (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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

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

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_23&oldid=1259597928"