Jump to content

User talk:Srich32977/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 29

Packers sweep Edit

Hi Srich32977, I reverted your edit at Packers sweep here. Note that I restored a few of your changes as uncontroversial here. Per MOS:REPEATLINK, Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. Note also that the example given after that sentence (|work=[[The Guardian]]) is a newspaper. MOS:OVERLINK tends to be more applicable to the actual article text, but even if you try to apply the first bullet (Everyday words understood by most readers in context.) to citations, it's a stretch to say that "everyday words" includes proper names of publishers. What may be an everyday publisher to me, may be completely unknown to someone from Australia (or some other English country). This also makes it easier for verification of the correct source or publisher, especially when working with older newspapers that have merged (i.e. the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel) or uncommon publishing organizations (Green Bay Packers, Inc.). Everyday words, imho, include cat, dog, tree, etc that definitely don't require linking in most cases. Lastly, WP:SEAOFBLUE is not applicable, as this shortcut to MOS:LINK applies to confusing combinations of linking (i.e. linking Packers sweep instead of Packers sweep), not overlinking. Based on the fact this is a semi-automated edit, I would recommend not editing citations in this manner as the MOS does not support your position. It also has almost zero benefit for the reader, as linking in a citation does not impact the reader's ability to understand the article (the main purpose of avoiding overlinking). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Green New Deal

Hello, why did you add an empty section, "Positions and principles," to this article? While it might be useful to have this information broken out, I'm not sure that an aspirational, but otherwise empty, caption accomplishes anything on its own. Regards, Lahaun (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lahaun: I'd like to think that User:HouseOfChange was aspired by my edit. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, although that is still a felony in Kansas. Lahaun (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mont Perelin Society, Koch Brothers, Libertarianism

I am responding to your comments to me yesterday. Yes, MacLean made specific references to connections between the Mont Perelin Society (MPS) and Koch-funded institutes like the Buchanan Center and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I can cite those page numbers, if that would solve this problem. Second, MacLean's book exposing Koch Brothers' programs received criticism from people within the academic community who have received funding grants from the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers Network can generate academic criticism of anyone who publishes truths about their work they would rather not have exposed. If conflict-of-interest, sponsored criticism is enough to prevent publishing truths on Wikipedia, then how is Wikipedia a reliable organ for publishing truth? Third, reading the Wikipedia page on the Mont Perelin Society, it only includes high-sounding generalizations and platitudes. It actually serves as a propaganda brochure for the MPS. It is not adequate to explain to readers what the MPS actually stands for and the work that MPS members actually accomplish in the real world. If prominent officers of the MPS, such as past president James M. Buchanan, have published books articulating their beliefs and strategies, and a book like MacLean's documents specific examples of the implementation of those beliefs and strategies, why cannot those specific beliefs, strategies and implementations be published on Wikipedia, to allow readers to be educated on the actual, real-world, influence of the MPS? BAKeenan (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@BAKeenan: Thanks. Yes, page numbers will help. They enable readers to find the specific points in the reference. Because MacLean's book involves living people, Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy must be followed. (In turn, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wishes to include material – favorable or unfavorable – about living people.) MacLean's specific criticisms actually belong in the particular articles (such as James M. Buchanan). Also, I understand your concern about the "propaganda" aspect of the MPS article, but avoiding non-encyclopedic "counter-propaganda" is important too. Finally, most importantly, please enjoy your editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

we thank you

March
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for article improvements in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

... and in March! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

SPLC RFC

Hey Srich--were you planning on starting an RfC with regard to the SPLC's recent firings/harrassment controversy? I recall you mentioned it on the talk page. I continue to think it'd be a good idea. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@ModerateMikayla555: My actual goal was to stem the rancor on the talk page. Given that the TP pissing contest is over, and that details on the shakeup are still emerging I don't think an RFC is needed at present. (BTW, thanks for your edits! It was interesting to see how much the endowment has grown.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point. I'll re-kindle the discussion in a bit as there's been some new RS coverage of it all. And no problem! Yeah, 2017 was a great year for them financially (Trump bump, probably) and then 2018 was about equally strong. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. You have been explicitly requested on multiple occasions not to remove spaces between initials or change the ISBN formatting on articles, yet you've just done the exact same thing again[1]. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay: – your attention (and response) to this talk page comment will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@DrKay:You repeat your ill-founded accusation of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing based on changes to an article that involves ~50 distinct edits. The article has 20 ISBNs – one had spaces instead of hyphens. Rather than guessing as to whether the spaces correctly represented the missing hyphens, it was easier to simply remove the spaces so that the overall listing would be more coherent. (After all, the magic ISBN link works either way.) Next we see that one of the 7 author names (15%) had a mix of spaces and no-spaces in the initials. It was simpler/easier/more efficient to take out the spaces so that a consistent presentation is provided. My-my! Quite disruptive!! Especially when weighed against the other 43 edits. But there is a guideline that says spaced initials should be used WP citations. (Or at least this guideline has been quoted to me.) Per that "guideline" every article with unspaced initials in the citations should be revised. NO, that wouldn't work (too-too much). Perhaps we should have editors count-up the various differences in presentation to decide what the established style is. Whichever style is in the majority is ipso-facto the established style. Yes! That's the easiest way to do it! And when there is a 50-50 or 1/3-1/3/-1/3 split we should take the matter to the article talk page to get a consensus. No. Editor Celia Homeford had the very best solution. She avoided the roll-back button and made corrections to my genuine mistakes. And she provided sound rationales explaining the changes. (From which I learned a thing or two.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Block

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for continuing to remove spaces from between initials today, yesterday, and the day before that despite being asked not to on multiple occasions and there being an open RfC on the topic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DrKay (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your block is entirely inappropriate. 1. You object because I've made edits to articles in which you have a personal or particular interest. 2. Your rationale – that someone (plus you) has told me I shouldn't remove spaces ignores the fact many other editors have thanked me for the very same type of edits. 3. You fail to respond to my sound, logical, correct argument that the "spaced initials" guidance does not apply author names in references. (E.g., the edits all comport to the Manual of Style.) 4. The "transgression" of yesterday (which you link) involved the initials of (G W F Hegel), but the INITs/INITIALs guidance you cherish only applies to those names by which persons are commonly known; Hegel's own article uses both spaced and unspaced initials, but all of them use full stops (G.W.F./G. W. F.) and there is no redirect for G W F Hegel (so, how could the removal of the unspaced initials violate a Manual of Style?). 5. You mention an RfC – there is no RfC, only talk page discussion 6. Only some of the initials in English Poor Laws had their spaces removed – there was (and is) a mix of spaced and unspaced initials amongst the references. 8. You want a week block because 3 of the 50 distinct changes to Poor Laws involved spaced initials? A rather severe punishment for a trivial non-transgression! (Especially when weighed against the improvements to this (formerly) Good Article.) 9. Same argument applies to History of China – one out of 25 changes involved a space in the author-reference name. 10. Did you also block because I added hyphens to 3 of the ISBNs in Poor Laws? After all, some of the people who objected to my edits did not like my removal of hyphens (and you endorsed those objections). Note, I am not asking for a reduction of the block. I want it removed entirely. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked per below ~Awilley (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in any of these three articles. More than one person, both here and elsewhere, has raised or commented on this issue. The issue is CITEVAR not CITESTYLE, as again you have been told repeatedly. There's nothing wrong with the edit to Hegel's name. You removed spaces From I. M. Copi, D. E. Flage, J. H. Holland, K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard even though you've been asked repeatedly not to remove spaces and there is an active talk page discussion about it. The block is not about removing 3 spaces. It is about performing edits that you know are contested despite repeated warnings, requests to stop and an active talk page discussion. DrKay (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I am one of the people who has both objected to this editor's edits and thanked the editor when their edits were clearly constructive. I believe that a summary block prior to discussion at a forum populated by third parties was not warranted. I encourage DrKay to remove the block and follow the dispute resolution process. If that path is followed, I urge Srich32977 to abstain from editing citations until that process is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad block The edits can hardly be considered disruptive...occasionally removing a space between initials in citations where the style is already mixed while performing tons of other helpful gnomish formatting fixes isn't hurting anybody. Seriously. We're talking about spaces between initials inside citation templates. Blocks or sanctions need to be proportionate to the offense, and blocks are for protecting the encyclopedia, not for punishing users. ~Awilley (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (by talk reader) "We're talking about spaces between initials inside citation templates" Exactly; I'm wondering why we have editors editing disruptively to have it a particular way. I don't know which way is right. I only know it doesn't matter all that much. Any reasonable person would back off about it rather than persist. For that reason, the block needs to stay in place, beyond the fact that the unblock rationale is a non-starter. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DrKay 1. You may have no/minimal interest in those 3 particular articles, but you did object to my edits on Edward VII in February in which you are the top editor. 2. You fail (or refuse) to acknowledge that 129,000+ of my live edits have been (more or less) helpful, and simply focus on a few ill-founded complaints from other editors who griped about the edits to pages on their watch-lists. 3. You could have avoided this whole situation by saying "Yes, Srich32977 is correct say that "INIT and INITIALS do not apply to article citations, only to article text" per the suggestions I posted. 4. Instead of addressing my comments you simply proclaimed that I was DISRUPTIVE. 5. You fail to acknowledge that WP:CITEVAR is a sub-section of WP:CITESTYLE and that "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles ...: [is] an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;". DrK, please note that EACH of my edits has been done with this guideline in mind and, accordingly, withdraw your sanction. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't edit Edward VII at all in February. The edit to which you refer is this one[2], which is an administrative action regarding disruptive editing.
CITEVAR says specifically not to change from one established style to another, which is what you're doing as I've already explained. DrKay (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
DrKay Again you evade the point. Regarding my original point 1. I said you have an interest in Edward VII (as top editor) and you misused your admin status when posting a warning about my helpful edits. Re: point 2: you ignore the thanks I received and support a minority of editors who object. (Thereby supporting the minority in their efforts to disrupt normal, helpful article improvements.) Re: point 3, you ignore. Re: point 4: you concede that I was correct, but fail to make allowances for your error. Re: point 5: you concede there is no-RfC on the issue, but fail to concede that referring to "an RfC" was an exaggeration used to support your punishment. Re: points 6, 8, and 9: you fail to admit there is a mix of citation styles in the poorly written English Poor Laws, and that my changes improved the article. Re: point 10: You fail to acknowledge that you supported the objection of others about hyphens in ISBNs. Next, regarding my re-response, you again fail to address what a "consistent" or "established" CITESTYLE is. In the "RfC' you simply said DISRUPTIVE defines established/consistent and you fail to answer my discussion above. In fact your block is DISRUPTIVE – in the past 365 days I've made 11,760 edits, or 225 per week. You are now preventing me from making another 225 helpful edits this week. Moreover, I can't comment on the "RfC", which seeks to provide a well-defined clarification to WP:NCP. Still, I'll keep Jonesey's advice in mind – accordingly, it's past time to revert this clearly excessive block. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I made no error in relation to point 4. There is no failure on my part on any other point, merely no comment. DrKay (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked per your assurance (email) that you'd stay away from editing initials in citations until some clarification or consensus is reached on the issue. ~Awilley (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dates and capitalization edits

Your edit at Transphobia bunched numerous, small changes and was about 80 to 90% correct, but it included various changes that should not have been made, such as changing the capitalization of the m-w dictionary entries, and removing full dates in favor of year only in various places. Also, you don't have to remove unused {{citation}} params, and changing pages to pp. is not an improvement.

What are we going to do about this? The mistakes are sprinkled all over in one big edit, so it's really tempting to just revert the edit, because the alternative is to go pick out the problems one by one and fix them, and frankly, I don't have the time. Can you please fix these problems, and also please set your bot or assisted editing tool to do these changes one by one, incrementally, instead various, unrelated changes in different sections of the article all at once? That way, if there is a problem, at least only the problematic edits can be reverted, and all the good stuff can be left alone. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The "I don't have the time" comment is true for many WP editors, and that's why we have citation and auto-ed bots available to fix small problems. Otherwise a 5-10 minute assisted edit would become a tedious 30+ minute edit to cover each of the small ±50 changes one at a time. So when we have numerous small improvements (like changing hyphens to endashes, quotations for article "titles", and other fixes which strive for copy-editing consistency) we accept the edits. As for specifics, "m-w" was changed because it was redundant in the citation; "pages" was made "pp." because all of the other page ranges used "p."; dates of book publication were converted to years only for consistency; etc.. You and I, and Jonesey95 all contributed to this "start-class" article and helped moved it along to "C-class". Thank you for your helpful copy-edits. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OKay, those all sound like good reasons, as far as they go. I guess another thing is that I really do pay attention to edit summaires, and the edit summary field in a large, scattered edit like that isn't long enough to really say everything that was done, so you really have to look at the diff to see, which in a long edit takes a lot of time; a longer summary would be helpful, or maybe two runs (two tabs running at the same time?) so they could have double the summary space.
The main area I still have a quibble then, is the date changes: removing month and day from some citations where they are available for certain publications just to be consistent with other publications where only the year is avaiable seems like removing information for no good reason. I don't believe there is any policy or guideline suggesting that "consistency" in date detail level is a good thing. Or maybe I just missed it; could you link me to it if it exists, or consider rethinking the date adjustments going forward if it doesn't? Thanks for your response and your work, cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITESTYLE / WP:CITEVAR may be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent bizarreness here

Apologies, Srich, I didn't realise you were online while I was rolling that stuff back! ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

NO apologies, only thanks! AHM is now blocked. – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha! The system works  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:35, 6 April 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)

Confusion about a reverted edit.

I took off the “birth name” section on SOPHIE’s wiki page, I’m wondering how exactly somebody’s birth name, which is not a legal name and has no use to Sophie or anyone else, can be noteworthy/helpful information? My birth age was 0 but I don’t think it would be useful to put that on a Wikipedia page about me because there’s nothing useful or interesting about that information. Rippenzack (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rippenzack: There's been much debate amongst Wikipedians over the years regarding these issues. In general we look at whether the info is WP:NOTEWORTHY and verified. An interesting essay (not policy) on the topic is at WP:ATADP, particularly the Personal Point of View section. In general I think the reader should get "the information" because it may be interesting, helpful, or useful – to other readers. When we see edit summaries that say "transphobic" or "deadname", it strongly indicates the editor is concerned about trans-sex issues from a personal viewpoint. Me? I'm tolerant about trans-sex and sexual preference issues. I put Sophie on my watchlist because one editor had made POV edits to Chelsea Manning where I'm the #2 contributor (after SlimVirgin). Chelsea's gender identity (and gender) have been hot WP topics over the years and I hope my contributions have maintained WP's neutrality. I'm trying to do the same for Sophie. – S. Rich (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC)

Here are some References I found related to the Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC): - (1) most recent article, February: https://medium.com/@phila_31297/meet-the-people-rescuing-american-politics-by-trying-to-capture-land-value-989f4d50b717 - (2) article last year: https://www.progress.org/articles/electing-geoist-candidates-in-the-united-states - (3) Daily Kos interview with a DFC member: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/9/23/151338/-? (4) Also, one of the other editors cited the Kos encyclopedia full entry about the DFC: http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/d/e/m/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus_f8c6.html - (5) article in Groundswell newsletter: http://commonground-usa.net/stoner-nadine_democratic-freedom-caucus-endorses-lvt-2009.htm - (6) critique of DFC by some libertarians: http://libertarianmajority.net/democratic-freedom-caucus-redacted-platform Mab135ac (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Mab135ac

Update: among the new References added since the discussion began about whether to keep or delete, one of the articles is a source documenting that a DFC state chair was elected to city council. One of the editors had thought there weren't any elected officials from the organization. Mab135ac (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Mab135ac

  • Comment. Hi @Srich32977: and @Mab135ac:. I think that the article should stay and that it's notable. Time is running out and it may get deleted. That being the case, I wonder if it's time to post a note to closing admin requesting that the history be preserved and it be re-directed to another article? I know that may not be the result you two want. Personally I think it's a last resort. I may not be around in a day or two and will only be on the following day. So what do you think? Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Karl Twist: @Mab135ac: – the issue is now OBE. While voicing support for retention, I have no heartburn over the AFD – DFC is not a WP:N organization. Thanks for your efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thatg's OK Srich32977. Still a shame it got deleted. At the very least it should have just been redirected. Take care. Karl Twist (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion to contact the closing admin to request that the history be preserved and that it be re-directed to another article. Apparently, the closing admin was king of hearts. I made two attempts to contact him, but it had already been deleted. I didn't hear back from him, perhaps because it was too late to do anything. I'm still surprised that it was deleted, especially because some of the editors thought it should be kept. I looked at the entry for Libertarian Democrats, and actually some of the things in that article could have been included in the Democratic Freedom Caucus entry if it had been kept. Mab135ac (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Mab135ac

Thank you ...

April
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to figure this out..

Did you get this part?

--

Hey there! 

  Sorry! The source is this guy! https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0107415/  He was a writer on the show. He's a friend of mine and asked me to include that since he thinks it's not cool there is no mention of Joe and Dylan when the did like the entire look of the thing and all the props and bets people had to do and Joe did the graphics and funny pop-ups as well. Tee also asked me to include the bit about the poster since that is what Joe is most known for, and I guess Tee is helping him update his IMDB and asked me to do this for him.

As for Spurlock being disgraced..

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/morgan-spurlock-rape-sexual-harassment_n_5a3222ece4b07ff75b004450

Other references. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420413/?ref_=nm_flmg_ardp_54 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1157461/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr36

Tha Maji --Tha Maji (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tha Maji: Me too. That is, I can't figure out the connection between your WP edits and these IMDb links. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Srich32977: The connection is it backs up the source as to their involvement with the show and their other IMDB credits. Tha Maji (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

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 so will 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.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Srich32977,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

woa u kinda look familiar

I've probably seen you multiple times in the vast land that is wikipedia which means you must be doing a lot of work! --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...

May
Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

New York, New York! It's a hell of a name!

Perusing Recent Changes I noticed your changes to Evil. Since there have been / will be so many wars over names, I am intrigued at the possibility of any 'certainty'. In those two edits I see you changed both "New York, NY" and "New York City" to just "New York". Is this some facet of |location= that says use the term requiring disambiguation? Or an agreed upon stylistic thing followed (nowadays?) by the publishing industry?

I mean, given the long-term repeated (yearly!) wars here over "What does 'New York' mean?" it seems wrong to force "what? which?" upon the reader. Shenme (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about specific guidance, but I do see different uses. E.g., New York; New York, NY; New York, N.Y.; etc. in different articles. Since New York is much like London – a world renowned city – I don't think readers will get confused. If they do, they have ready access to tools which will clarify for them. These aren't big edits, just my small attempt to present concise and consistent articles. Please feel free to format the location data as you think best

August 2019

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Forbidden Planet, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. We don't put our comments on articles. That belongs to the talk page. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.

March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.

May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...

June
cornflowers
... with thanks from QAI

... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Srich32977,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

MRI sequences

I had to revert your edits to MRI sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MRI_sequence&oldid=906490632). It created a duplicate overview table and GRE, and complete deletion of spin echo among others. It was thus difficult to see what parts you may have improved, so feel free to try again for that. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: Thanks. The edit came from a glich in my mobile app. I've reloaded the app on my phone and hopefully the problem will disappear. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977/Archive_23&oldid=1086002044"