→The Wachowskis: try WP:BLPN |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
{{Archives|title=[[User talk:Johnuniq/Archives|Index of archives]]|auto=no|search-width=40}} |
|||
== Uploading images == |
|||
{{Archive box| |
|||
*[[/Archive 1|June 2008 – Sep 2009]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 2|Sep 2009 – Dec 2009]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 3|Jan 2010 – Aug 2010]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 4|Aug 2010 – Mar 2011]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 5|Mar 2011 – July 2011]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 6|July 2011 – Oct 2011]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 7|Nov 2011 – Dec 2011]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 8|Dec 2011 – May 2012]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 9|May 2012 – July 2012]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 10|July 2012 – Aug 2012]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 11|Aug 2012 – Feb 2013]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 12|Feb 2013 – May 2013]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 13|May 2013 – Sep 2013]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 14|Sep 2013 – Dec 2013]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 15|Dec 2014 – Apr 2014]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 16|Apr 2014 – July 2014]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 17|Aug 2014 – Dec 2014]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 18|Jan 2015 – Apr 2015]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 19|May 2015 – Dec 2015]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 20|Dec 2015 – June 2016]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 21|July 2016 – Jan 2017]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 22|Jan 2017 – July 2017]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 23|July 2017 – Dec 2017]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 24|Dec 2017 – Dec 2018]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 25|Jan 2019 – Aug 2019]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 26|Aug 2019 – Jan 2020]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 27|Jan 2020 – July 2020]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 28|July 2020 – Jan 2021]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 29|Jan 2021 – July 2021]] |
|||
}} |
|||
Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary. |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – July 2021 == |
|||
* [[:File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg]] |
|||
* [[:File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg]] |
|||
* [[:File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg]] |
|||
Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the [[WP:MTC]]. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Dedhert.Jr}} I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, [[WP:IMAGES]] has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at [[WP:HELPDESK]] or (if uploaded at Commons) [[c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright]]. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, [[c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr]] and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded [[:File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg]] at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (July 2021). |
|||
Recently this page's protection was raised. |
|||
{{Col-begin}} |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet. |
|||
Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage. |
|||
But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags. |
|||
The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description. |
|||
A disputed and misinterpreted claim |
|||
"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion. |
|||
An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org. |
|||
While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article. |
|||
I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism. |
|||
Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide". |
|||
I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing |
|||
page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article. |
|||
Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself. |
|||
I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion |
|||
I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this. |
|||
[[User:Salekin.sami36|Salekin.sami36]] ([[User talk:Salekin.sami36|talk]]) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Salekin.sami36}} This refers to [[Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War]] and the fact that I applied indefinite [[WP:ECP]] protection as a result of a request at [[WP:RPPI]]. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a [[WP:CTOPS|contentious topic]]. All you can do is make suggestions at [[Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War]] but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See [[WP:DR]] which would probably lead to an [[WP:RFC]]. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved, |
|||
::after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.[[User:Salekin.sami36|Salekin.sami36]] ([[User talk:Salekin.sami36|talk]]) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm afraid that's why the topic is contentious. A relevant essay might be [[WP:CPUSH]] but again, I have no knowledge of the topic and no ability to decide who is correct regarding the content. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Horse racing distance template == |
|||
Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. [[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the note. I'm glad {{tl|hrd}} has been useful. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== YGM == |
|||
{{ygm}} [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Comment on revert on [[Robert FitzRoy]] == |
|||
You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. [[User:AlmostReadytoFly|AlmostReadytoFly]] ([[User talk:AlmostReadytoFly|talk]]) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk ([[Talk:Robert FitzRoy]]) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Chris Brown ECP == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on [[Chris Brown]] since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — [[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, I've done that. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Template:PolParsEstCat == |
|||
Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{t|PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on [https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=PolParsEstCat#bottom 212 pages], which per [[WP:HRT]] is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|HouseBlaster}} I template-protected {{tl|PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2020/02#Template:PolParsEstCat|29 February 2020]]. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at [[WP:RPPD]] where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Happy to go to [[WP:RFPD]]. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.{{pb}}My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have [[WP:TRAINWRECK]] issues.){{pb}}I will note that I have been making use of [[WP:RMT]] when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Disruptive IP range...still == |
|||
I'm not the OP, and this isn't [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive IP range|the original notification location]], but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. [[User:Mapsax|Mapsax]] ([[User talk:Mapsax|talk]]) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Mapsax}} Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at [[Talk:WTIC-FM]] which would justify a longer block (the previous block for [[Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40]] was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and [[User talk:2601:183:4B82:E70:D05D:9EF7:A423:9B63|attempts]] to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. [[User:Mapsax|Mapsax]] ([[User talk:Mapsax|talk]]) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wouldn't put a great deal of effort into it because, as you say, the chance of getting a response is very low. However, if there is no effort it is hard to justify, say, a three-month block on the basis that the IP would have failed to respond. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (January 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk|Red-tailed hawk]] |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robertsky|Robertsky]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermaLink/1031318867#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#July 2021|Kees08]] • [[Special: PermaLink/1031318867#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#July 2021|Nickshanks]] • [[Special:PermaLink/1034748860#Request desysop (Protonk)|Protonk]] • [[Special:PermaLink/1031318867#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#July 2021|Schissel]] • [[Special:PermaLink/1031318867#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#July 2021|Ultraexactzz]] • [[Special:PermaLink/1035529068#Desysop request (Wknight94)|Wknight94]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1198163833#Desysop|Ameliorate!]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193155124#Desysop (Ancheta Wis)|Ancheta Wis]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193949086#Deceased administrator, Anthony Bradbury|Anthony Bradbury]] ([[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2024#Anthony Bradbury (Anthony Bradbury)|deceased]]) |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192900858#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#January 2024|Cobi]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192900858#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#January 2024|Ev]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1194493000#Desysop request for Moondyne|Moondyne]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1194569776#Desysop for WTT|Worm That Turned]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1194752334#Desysop for WTT|Worm That Turned]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Diff/1201048570#Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024|Wugapodes]] |
||
[[File: |
[[File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Interface administrator changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1200495852#Inactive interface administrators 2024-01-28|Enterprisey]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermaLink/1036044467#changes to Oversight team|ST47]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193040631#Remove INTADMIN from Izno|Izno]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
{{Col-end}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
||
* An [[Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators#RFC: Increase inactivity requirement|RfC]] about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback. |
|||
:*An [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_delay_(again)|RfC is open]] to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for [[WP:G13|G13]] speedy deletions. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
||
* Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. ({{phab|T326065}}) |
|||
:*Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating [[:meta:Help:DPL|dynamic lists]] on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. ({{phabricator|T287380}}) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
||
* Following a [[Special:Permalink/1193639157#Motion: Reliable source consensus-required restriction|motion]], the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas. |
|||
:*Following an [[Special:PermaLink/1033281841#Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4|amendment request]], the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the [[WP:500/30|500/30]] rule in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions|remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case]] does not apply to [[WP:RM|requested move discussions]]. |
|||
* Community feedback is [[Special:Permalink/1200584793#Feedback requested for AE's "Information for administrators" section|requested]] for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at [[WP:AE]]. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
||
* Voting in the [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024|2024 Steward elections]] will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The [[:meta:Stewards/Confirm/2024|confirmation process]] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically [https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/70 check your eligibility] to vote. |
|||
:*You can vote for candidates in the [[:meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021|2021 Board of Trustees elections]] from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election. |
|||
* A vote to '''ratify the charter for the [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]]''' is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via [[:m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/395|Secure Poll]]. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information|here]]. |
|||
* Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey|Community Wishlist Survey]]. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey#January 4, 2024: Shaping the Future of the Community Wishlist Survey|Read more]] |
|||
* The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024|Unreferenced articles backlog drive]] is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024|'''Sign up to participate!''']] |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{ |
{{center|{{flatlist| |
||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
||
Line 80: | Line 153: | ||
}}}} |
}}}} |
||
<!-- |
<!-- |
||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) |
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
||
<!-- Message sent by User: |
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1201592826 --> |
||
==Highly inappropriate warning of a block== |
|||
== AE == |
|||
Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thinker78&diff=prev&oldid=1205281622 warned me] that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the [[End of Wikipedia]] I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::My sense is that it's getting worse. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Spanish protests edit == |
|||
I was wondering if there is a minimum time, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BengHistory|an AE thread]] must be kept open. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 09:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I have been meaning to close that for a while and I finally did it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia |
|||
== ANI == |
|||
I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. ([[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331|talk]]) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)) |
|||
Thank you for your question to me at ANI, and for coming in with a fresher approach. |
|||
:*{{la|Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024)}} |
|||
:*{{no redirect|2023 Spanish protests}} {{green|(original title)}} |
|||
:Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See [[WP:DR]] for dispute resolution and [[WP:RM]] for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at [[WP:Teahouse]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Thanks, again == |
|||
I will not have any time today to address it: I will hope to be able to tomorrow morning. [[User:Kevin McE|Kevin McE]] ([[User talk:Kevin McE|talk]]) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (T) ]] 🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Twomad page protection == |
||
Why did you decide to extended-protect [[Twomad]] when both requests ([[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/02#Twomad|1]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/02#twomad 2|2]]) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? [[User:Doublah|Doublah]] ([[User talk:Doublah|talk]]) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kolya_Butternut&oldid=1039507687#Warning this warning], the thread immediately above it indicates that Newimpartial should receive one as well; the thread consists of off-SPI accusations of sock-puppetry against two editors whom Newimpartial claims are or "look like" Flyer, and both of them clearly object to the out-of-band accusations. Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed, and the activity smells like coordinated ([[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:GANG]]) behavior between Kolya Butternut and Newimpartial to shit-stir in user talk after being prevented from doing so further at SPI and now at ANI. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 20:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Doublah}} Something confusing happened with [[Twomad]]. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=protect&user=&page=Twomad&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist protection log] which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: First of all, I don't even agree with KB on either how to interpret the Flyer-related evidence or, more importantly, on the interpretation of community norms - I do not think it is in any way ok to try to dox our editors. So I profoundly resent the {{tq|WP:MEAT / WP:GANG}} accusation (and at the time I made my Talk page post, I had no idea of any of the sordid details of Kolya's arb filing, even to the extent that they were revealed at the Arb noticeboard). |
|||
::Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: As far as {{tq|Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed}}, that - like so many things SMcCandlish has said about me in the past - is completely false. As I immediately explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheresNoTime&diff=prev&oldid=1038675748 to the Admin that closed the SPI], it was an edit conflict situation and I had no way of saving or retrieving my edit except by "restoring" the SPI. No going {{tq|out of my way}}, no digging anything {{tq|back up}}. |
|||
:::Thanks, I am sure you did the right thing. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I recognize, Johnuniq, that you disagree with me about the appropriate treatment of Flyer-lookalike accounts going forward, and I will consider myself equally "warned" whether or not you post anything on my Talk page. From my perspective, the Arb noticeboard promises a logical and appropriate path to deal with further disruption arising from the lookalike accounts, going forward, and I will do no more and no less than is necessary to uphold WP rules and community standards in this area. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::"saving or retrieving my edit ... by 'restoring' the SPI" = "went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed". Restating my observation in Newimpartial's own words but with identical facts does nothing to disprove my observation; rather the opposite. While "I will consider myself equally 'warned' whether or not you post anything on my Talk page" is diffable, few will see it, and it would be better for Newimpartial's user talk page to have a warning, especially since ArbCom keeps making up nonsense rules about whether someone is "aware" in a formal way of potential impending action, and they tie this bureaucratic "awareness" concept to receipt of user-talk notices. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: SMcCandlish, clicking "restore" - which was the only way I could retain the edit I had already composed to have any record of it - is simply not going {{tq|out of (my) way to dig these observations back up}}. Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean, and your repeated ASPERSIONS and unfounded accusations are simply unCIVIL. I am asking you, as politely as I can, to stop doing that. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:While I agree with you, I think {{u|Newimpartial}} is more sensitive to what they can get away with than some others and doesn't need more of a warning than what we're saying. I can understand what happened at the SPI—Newimpartial had composed a comment they thought useful and when they went to publish they found the page had been deleted so they thought their careful comment deserved to be preserved in at least the deleted version, even if no non-admins could see it. That was a rather full-on blunder of judgment, particularly given that the comment was innuendo without substance. I issued a strong warning to another editor at [[Special:PermanentLink/1040328495#Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen|permalink]]. That received four endorsements from admins and three thanks from others and I will follow through with that matter or any other similar problem. The community and Arbcom have endorsed the current situation and anyone who wants to see how far they can push at the edges will be bluntly stopped. The internet has thousands of places where people can exchange views on all kinds of fruit-cake ideas—Wikipedia is not one of them. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: To be fair, at the time of the SPI, ArbCom had not even announced its intention to create an SPI where these problems could readily be dealt with. Since they have expressed their intention to do so, I am confident that DUCK evidence will be appropriately examined and dealt with as it is identified. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection == |
|||
== Program synthesis == |
|||
[[Trump Tower wiretapping allegations]] needs protection. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi! You helped with semi-protecting the page [[Program synthesis]] on 4 Mar 2020, to prevent the anonymous IP 2601:184:4081:1cbe:... from disruptive editing. Since the protection has been released, we have the same problem with IP 2601:184:407f:1ac0:... (starting on 20 Aug 2021), so I'd like to ask you to protect the page again. Thanks in advance. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm late. Someone else has semi-protected. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Jochen Burghardt}} I partially blocked [[Special:Contributions/2601:184:407F:1AC0:0:0:0:0/64]] so they are not able to edit [[Program synthesis]] for two years (they have been pushing their OR for 18 months). I see there is also an account but they could still edit even if the article were semi-protected and the disruption, while frustrating, is not at a level that would justify more restrictions at the moment. Let me know when the next problem arises and I'll deal with it then. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Johnuniq}} Thanks! I expect user Mdaviscs to continue the edits now. However, I'm deeply involved in the debate with them, so I'm very biased, and should request moderation of the conflict rather than blocking the user. That said, all recent edits criticized that the approach amounts to plucking a program from a list (starting on 25 August 2019 on the talk page), and I have answered that issue starting on 26 August 2019. Meanwhile I have no idea how to improve the article to meet the critics (a few initial contributions of the IP *did* lead to some improvements in presentation), and I'm tired of repeating myself again and again. (I had also asked {{u|JayBeeEll}} to help settling the conflict, see [[User_talk:JayBeeEll#Help_needed_with_Program_synthesis]].) For now, I'll wait and see what happens, and possibly ask you again. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 14:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus== |
|||
== Deprecated parameter == |
|||
{{talkback|Template talk:Convert|Bogus unit "kiloare"|ts=12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
[[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User Nangaf talk page == |
|||
Hi. Do you know when the caption parameter in [[Template:Medical cases chart|this template]] was deprecated? Someone else began to replace the caption parameter with the footer parameter in several other templates even if the footer parameter did not yet appear in the documentation of the template. '''[[User:LSGH|LSGH]]''' ([[User talk:LSGH|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/LSGH|contributions]]) 14:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:LSGH|LSGH]]: I don't know anything about that template although I did comment on its talk about some errors that were occurring in articles in January 2021. At [[Template:Medical cases chart]], you can click "history" next to "Template documentation" to see the history of the documentation page. The most recent edit was [[Special:Diff/1040762266|26 August 2021]] which shows the deprecation. The history at [[Module:Medical cases chart]] shows that first ''footer'' was inserted as the preferred parameter, and later ''caption'' was removed to make it invalid. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::It appears that [[Special:Diff/1040673406|this edit]] allowed both parameters to function properly while the process of replacement was going on. Do you know why the replacement was necessary? Are the two parameters similar in Lua? '''[[User:LSGH|LSGH]]''' ([[User talk:LSGH|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/LSGH|contributions]]) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, that allowed both parameter names to work and to serve the same purpose. I have seen enough of [[Module:Medical cases chart]] to know that it is good code that performs useful work. It is complex and needs knowledgeable maintenance, which it is receiving. In my experience, it's best to let maintainers work in their own way and tolerate any quirks (if there are such quirks). That edit shows that the module uses <code>footer</code> for the parameter and it would be irritating for any experienced programmer to have the inconsistency of the parameter having a different name elsewhere. I infer from your above comments that they changed all the places where the module is used to be consistent so I would say that is a good outcome. My guess is that the replacement was not <u>necessary</u> but was implemented for consistency and a cleaner result. Matters like that are always debatable but I wouldn't raise it without a compelling reason such as errors in articles. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. [[User:Nangaf|Nangaf]] ([[User talk:Nangaf|talk]]) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Conduct Question re Leopard Gecko Article == |
|||
:{{ping|Nangaf}} My options for dealing with long-term abusers are limited—it boils down to blocking everyone involved. A bunch of stuff is going on here at the moment and it looks like I got confused and blocked [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44|2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44]] which does not cover [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8|2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8]] who posted at your talk. I have watched your talk since noticing the shifting IP turn up there during a noticeboard discussion, I think at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Heiner Rindermann]]. I have to go elsewhere and don't have an opportunity to investigate further. I can see that you are doing everything correctly and are concerned about third-parties interfering at your talk (I saw the history which shows it has happened before). [[WP:BMB]] has enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic opposers who favor complete liberty. I'm one of the former and keen advocate of [[WP:DENY]] so I am afraid you will hear from me again if the IP continues. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 == |
|||
Hello Again, |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (February 2024). |
|||
Quick question for you - in terms of the curious case of the leopard gecko article, where folks keep edit warring without discussion or citations - I think the most obvious reason for this if we are presuming no malice is that they're confused by the Wikipedia process itself and perhaps don't know how to get to the talk page or check their messages. I could probably find stakeholders interested in discussing some of these issues through herpetoculture groups, but it seems a little sketchy to be soliciting editors from a third party site. It could also have the unintended effect of spreading a position that is not well cited but is widely believed by users of a social media echo chamber. At the same time, it would potentially be a way to increase interest in improving articles. Are there rules/guidelines for or against soliciting editors on websites that are non Wikipedia? Any direction on this topic you could provide would be appreciated. |
|||
{{Col-begin}} |
|||
Thanks, |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
[[User:Connorlong90|Connorlong90]] ([[User talk:Connorlong90|talk]]) 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
:This relates to [[Common leopard gecko]] and our discussion in [[User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 29#Thank you for assistance|January 2021]]. The problem is clearly one devoted fan but I don't see any activity since July 2021 so we have to call that a good result. There is no way to handle long-term disruption other than tediously repeating standard procedures. Let me know if it resurfaces and I will handle it. I would not recommend starting off-wiki discussions because it's extremely unlikely that our friend would see it, and they almost certainly would not be convinced if they did see it. You would either get no contributions at Wikipedia, or you would wake a small group of people convinced that their experience proves you are wrong and who would spend the next few months trying to correct the article. There are no rules/guidelines about this, other than that canvassing is bad. Generic discussion about the underlying issue (nocturnal/crepuscular) would be fine, but not useful IMHO. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb|Sdkb]] |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch|The Night Watch]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|East718]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1210532424#Desysop request (Isabelle Belato)|Isabelle Belato]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1204281845#Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac|Mzajac]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|Staecker]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201923983#Desysop request (Stan Shebs)|Stan Shebs]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|Sugarfish]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1208474988#Resignation (Tamzin)|Tamzin]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
==[[Talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming]]== |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
Hello, Johnuniq, |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
This page was listed on a database report of orphaned talk subpages, most of which I have been deleting because they were leftover after AFD closures. This talk page had a discussion on it but there is no related article/project page which it is associated with so ordinarily it would be deleted. You were the most senior editor participating in the discussion (many others are no longer active) so I thought I'd check with you and see if you know whether this page should be deleted or preserved and moved to another location. Thanks for any help you can provide. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[m:Special:Permalink/26246943#SilkTork@enwiki|SilkTork]] |
|||
:{{tps}} I closed the AFD and deleted the article, [[User:Liz|Liz]]. It was subsequently taken to deletion review [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 24|here]], where the deletion was endorsed. That was the place for a review — not the talkpage of the AFD, which is in any case superseded by the later (and fuller) DR. I think you should go ahead and delete the talkpage. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 06:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC). |
|||
::Thanks for the background. I don't remember that issue from 18 months ago but it looks like I was pinged to that talk page and unwisely responded. I agree with Bishonen that the talk page should be deleted per [[WP:G8]] (dependent on a non-existent or deleted page). @Liz: Thanks for fixing problems like this. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you for the background. Most of the pages are more straight-forward, like archived talk pages of deleted articles that were missed when the articles were deleted. I'll go ahead and delete this page. Thanks again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Col-end}} |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – September 2021 == |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|Phase I]] of the 2024 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|RfA review]] is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the [[WP:RFA|requests for adminship process]]. |
|||
* Following [[Special:Permalink/1210946192#RFC: Increase inactivity requirement|an RfC]], the inactivity requirement for the removal of the [[Wikipedia:Interface administrators|interface administrator]] right increased from 6 months to 12 months. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
* The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. ({{phab|T353388}}) |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
* The 2024 appointees for the [[:m:Ombuds commission|Ombuds commission]] are [[m:User:だ*ぜ|だ*ぜ]], [[m:User:AGK|AGK]], [[m:User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]], [[m:User:Bennylin|Bennylin]], [[m:User:Daniuu|Daniuu]], [[m:User:Doǵu|Doǵu]], [[m:User:Emufarmers|Emufarmers]], [[m:User:Faendalimas|Faendalimas]], [[m:User:MdsShakil|MdsShakil]], [[m:User:Minorax|Minorax]], [[m:User:Nehaoua|Nehaoua]], [[m:User:Renvoy|Renvoy]] and [[m:User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] as members, with [[m:User:Vermont|Vermont]] serving as steward-observer. |
|||
* Following the [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2024|2024 Steward Elections]], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Albertoleoncio|Albertoleoncio]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/EPIC|EPIC]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/JJMC89|JJMC89]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Johannnes89|Johannnes89]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Melos|Melos]] and [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Yahya|Yahya]]. |
|||
---- |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1210490572 --> |
|||
== Incivility == |
|||
Would you please look at the discussion on [[Talk:Grace VanderWaal]]? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I removed a comment and will watch. It's minor but has to be prevented. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Sri Lankan Armed Forces == |
|||
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. [[User:Oz346|Oz346]] ([[User talk:Oz346|talk]]) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AN == |
|||
Thank you for your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Involved_page_protection_by_yours_truly here]. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Revdel_request this] ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the alert. That is bad and I would have blocked the IP /64 range for a lot longer than 72 hours if I'd seen it, although I can see the argument that there's not much point with a throw-away IP. Feel free to contact me if you notice other bad things. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Editor experience invitation == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview [[User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections|here]]. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I == |
|||
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review]] is now '''no longer accepting new proposals'''. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]'s structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion: |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Proposal 2]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, provides for the addition of a text box at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3: Add three days of discussion before voting (trial)|Proposals 3]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|3b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Usedtobecool}}, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial)|Proposal 5]]''', initiated by {{noping|SilkTork}}, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6c: Provisional adminship via sortition (admin nomination)|Proposals 6c]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6d: Provisional adminship via sortition (criteria to be determined)|6d]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 7: Threaded General Comments|Proposal 7]]''', initiated by {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Proposal 9b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Reaper Eternal}}, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%|Proposals 12c]]''', '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21: Reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21]]''', and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21b: Slightly reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21b]]''', initiated by {{noping|City of Silver}}, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and {{u|HouseBlaster}}, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Proposal 13]]''', initiated by {{noping|Novem Lingaue}}, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Proposal 14]]''', initiated by {{noping|Kusma}}, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Proposals 16]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki|16c]]''', initiated by {{noping|Thebiguglyalien}} and {{noping|Soni}}, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboard]]; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16e: Allow the community to initiate recall RfBs|Proposal 16e]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Proposal 17]]''', initiated by {{noping|SchroCat}}, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 18: Normalize the RfB consensus requirements|Proposal 18]]''', initiated by {{noping|theleekycauldron}}, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Proposal 24]]''', initiated by {{noping|SportingFlyer}}, provides for a more robust alternate version of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|optional candidate poll]]. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Proposal 25]]''', initiated by {{noping|Femke}}, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 27: Introduce training/periodic retraining for admins|Proposal 27]]''', initiated by {{noping|WereSpielChequers}}, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 28: limiting multi-part questions|Proposal 28]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions. |
|||
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals]]. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her), via: |
|||
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1213660347 --> |
|||
== Fiddling == |
|||
You do understand that "''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Protection_table&diff=prev&oldid=1214113290 what is the point of fiddling with this]''" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Please use the appropriate talk page: [[Template talk:Protection table]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit warring == |
|||
Hi, Jon. |
|||
This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism: |
|||
*[[Effie Bancroft]] |
|||
*[[Henry James Byron]]. |
|||
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll watch those two articles for a while but won't act unless more occurs. As you know, the battle continues at [[WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes]] and I would have no problem telling someone to give it a rest until that RfC is resolved. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Arbcom notice== |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->--<span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
== Precious anniversary == |
|||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Five}} |
|||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Gerda! I have to say I haven't done anything in recent months to warrant being rewarded but thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Abby and Brittany Hensel]] == |
|||
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of [[WP:BLP]], as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel&diff=1216382250&oldid=1216381465 the photos in this New Zealand article]''' look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, what an amazing story. It's strange that such an unusual marriage between US citizens living in the US (I think) has only been noted by ''[[The New Zealand Herald]]''. In a few more days, there might be other reports. The photo credit in the nzherald article credits Facebook. I don't know but it's possible that a verified account at Facebook posting about their wedding might be a RS. I would ask for opinions at [[WP:BLPN]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – April 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (March 2024). |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (August 2021). |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211130465#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#March 2024|Kbdank71]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211130465#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#March 2024|Kosack]] |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting rename.png|20px|alt=renamed|Renamed]] {{noping|Ashleyyoursmile}} → {{noping|Viridian Bovary}} |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1212001446#Desysop request NrDg|NrDg]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211247911#Desysop request TLSuda|TLSuda]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
||
* An [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure|RfC]] is open to convert all current and future [[WP:OLDDS|community discretionary sanctions]] to (community designated) [[WP:CTOP|contentious topics procedure]]. |
|||
:*Feedback is requested on the [[Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review|Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft]] by the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee#Phase 2|Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
:*A [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_we_use_ECP_on_templates?|RfC is open]] on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on [[WP:HIGHRISK|high-risk templates]]. |
|||
* The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. ({{Phab|T313405}}) |
|||
:*A [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discord_logs|discussion is open]] to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
:*A [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183#RFC%3A_Pending-changes_protection_of_Today's_featured_article|RfC]] on the next steps after the trial of [[WP:PC|pending changes]] on [[WP:TFA|TFA]]s has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs. |
|||
*An [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|arbitration case has been opened]] to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy". |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
* Editors are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries|sign up]]''' for [[WP:The Core Contest|The Core Contest]], an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital]] and other core articles on Wikipedia. |
|||
---- |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1216613162 --> |
|||
== Case request ''Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals'' declined == |
|||
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request ''Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals''. You may view the declined case request using [[Special:Permalink/1216743838#Consensus_process,_censorship,_administrators'_warnings_and_blocks_in_dispute,_and_responses_to_appeals|this link]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Appreciation... == |
|||
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins?[[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I recommend proceeding slowly and waiting for opinions at [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sources into....]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== HELP NEEDED.... == |
|||
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. [[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's better to write meaningful headings (not "HELP NEEDED....") and you should mention what you are talking about (what glitch? what inquiry?). Information about the bell icon is at [[Help:Notifications]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It had a glitch that every time I logged in under a old, now terminated account, I got thrown out and had to use another, my current account to log in. A bug caused this to happen. Now I got some graphics issues going on. Is there a bug on here or is my Android phone acting up? Appreciate the help. The announcement about what happened is not only on my user page, but in my contribs as well. [[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Module:Age == |
|||
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Sure but I need to understand exactly what you mean. Please provide an example of wikitext you would like to enter and what it should produce. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::For example, here you enter <nowiki>{{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}</nowiki>. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You mean [[Template:Start date]]? That does not seem to have anything to do with [[Module:Age]]. That template wants year/month/day, for example, <code><nowiki>{{start date|1993|02|24}}</nowiki></code> is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{tl|start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module: |
|||
:::::*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}} |
|||
:::::I recommend using the following which is hard to mess up: |
|||
:::::*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}} |
|||
:::::Using <code><nowiki>{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}</nowiki></code> would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying function <code>getDates</code> to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It is hard to talk in abstract terms. ''What'' do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?{{pb}}<code><nowiki>{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}</nowiki></code>{{pb}} If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is <nowiki>{{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}</nowiki>. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::What is the wanted output from <nowiki>{{MDY|2|5|1993}}</nowiki>? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I plan on using the templates that are typed at the bottom of the Age module. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|12}}Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example: |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}} |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}} |
|||
A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, <code><nowiki>{{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}</nowiki></code>. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in [[Module:Age/sandbox]]. See the following diff. |
|||
{{#invoke:convert/tester|compare|Age}} |
|||
[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've changed the module I imported to the wiki, but it won't allow to values to be displayed for other than "Birth date and age". I've added "Extract" and Death date and age" to the wiki, so far. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tl|extract}} uses [[Module:Date]] to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example <code><nowiki>{{extract|April 1, 2024}}</nowiki></code> or three numbers, for example <code><nowiki>{{extract|2024|4|1}}</nowiki></code>. I won't be changing that. |
|||
::What does <code><nowiki>{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}</nowiki></code> display? |
|||
::If something does not work, you would need to provide an example of wikitext used as input and the exact output that is displayed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Doesn't matter now. It was because I had the dates the wrong way round, didn't import the "If preview" modules and nor did I import the "Main other" template. Anyway, thanks for all the help you've been to me to achieve what I've needed to do :) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Signature Requirements == |
|||
Hey, I saw you undid my change to [[WP:CUSTOMSIG/P]] but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states: |
|||
* A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. |
|||
* It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. |
|||
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. |
|||
[[User:ThunderPeel2001|WikiMane (TP2001)]] ([[User talk:ThunderPeel2001|talk]]) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|ThunderPeel2001}} Please discuss issues on the appropriate talk page, [[WT:Signatures]]. That provides an easily found history of discussion relevant to the page and gives those watching an opportunity to express an opinion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== That IP LTA range again == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, |
|||
Remember that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82/40 R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February?] Remember how there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnuniq&diff=1211122251&oldid=1211117989 some question] about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heiner_Rindermann&diff=1219048905&oldid=1219041596 returned to the topic area], so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted. |
|||
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann]], but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.) |
|||
Thanks, [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:One of the exceptions to topic bans listed at [[WP:BANEX]] is reverting "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Now that the discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached a clear conclusion that this material violates BLP policy and must be removed, restoring it seems to qualify as an example of an obvious violation, and my revert is an exception to topic bans as defined by that policy. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|talk]]) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tageb%C3%BCcher the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit] to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed [[Joe job]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tristan_albatross who it was]. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|talk]]) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Johnuniq}} Oddly enough this one blocked me earlier this afternoon. The strange part is it lasted for one pending edit (which directed me here in the block message) and then seems to have been fixed. |
|||
:::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|Awshort}} Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{u|Johnuniq}} experienced this again tonight (currently), but I went to whatismyipaddress.com to try to figure out the issue. |
|||
:::::::2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 |
|||
:::::::Blocked |
|||
:::::::2600:1004:b118:*:*:*:*:* |
|||
:::::::Me, on Verizon's cell service. |
|||
:::::::The website above shows it as ISP:Verizon Business, so figured I would give an update since it may affect other users as well. |
|||
:::::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{ping|Awshort}} A block of [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40|2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]] applies to all IP addresses that start with <code>2600:1004:B1</code>. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Moana 2]] - please semiprotect== |
|||
There is a huge amount of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moana_2&action=history IP disruption here]. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==The Merchant of Venice== |
|||
Can you or somebody do something about [[The Merchant of Venice]]? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. [[User:Masato.harada|Masato.harada]] ([[User talk:Masato.harada|talk]]) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:My [[User talk:AlexAndrews#Procedures|note]] at the talk of {{u|AlexAndrews}} is dated 06:14, 22 April 2024. Since then, only one edit has occurred at [[The Merchant of Venice]] and it was to add an innocuous external link. My suggestion would be to start a new section at article talk with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text or to restore a particular version. Then see what other opinions are presented. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. I will watch and ensure edit warring against consensus does not occur. Editors do not need to respond to everything posted on a talk page. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment ''"Edit warring against consensus will not occur."'' and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, ''my'' reading. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had ''one'' comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice&diff=prev&oldid=1221159614] Again, I'm fighting my sarcastic urges, and again, I hope... Nevermind. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I was unaware until now that I was being discussed behind my back on this talk page, but I see that another editor from the article's talk page managed to find this discussion. |
|||
: |
|||
:For the record, I am not "''waging a campaign to completely rewrite''" the article; I am '''adding encyclopedic content''' to improve the article. |
|||
: |
|||
:I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors appear to be threatened by the addition of encyclopedic content to the article, especially when '''the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia''' is to be a '''complete''' source of '''encyclopedic content''': |
|||
:{{blockquote | the project's purpose, which is to create a free '''encyclopedia''', in a variety of languages, presenting '''the sum of all human knowledge'''.}} [[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]] ([[User talk:AlexAndrews|talk]]) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If you have not disabled [[WP:NOTIFY|notifications]], you would have been notified about this discussion in my [[Special:Diff/1220361493|23 April 2024 comment]]. You can probably still see the notification by clicking the bell icon at the top of any page. It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article. The problem is that others disagree. There is no practical way for disputes at Wikipedia to be resolved other than through discussion ending in [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. At the moment, your proposals do not have consensus. That means you are likely to be blocked if disruption continues. You can get independent opinions and advice at [[WP:Teahouse]]. If you do that, please '''do not''' try to explain details about the issue—they won't want to know. Questions people there might offer opinions on are (a) who has consensus at [[Talk:The Merchant of Venice]]; and (b) what might be done to resolve the disagreement. The standard answer regarding (b) is at [[WP:DR]]. I was going to say a bit more but while looking at another page I just noticed that {{user|AlexAndrews}} has been indefinitely blocked. Since I've written all this, I'll post it anyway. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Grace VanderWaal]] == |
|||
There is renewed IP vandalism there. Would you kindly semi-protect? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (April 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1220304714#Resysop request (Nyttend)|Nyttend]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|JohnOwens]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|Killiondude]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218467362#Handing in my mop|MelanieN]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|Joe Roe]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship review]] has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|creating a discussion-only period]] (3b) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|administrator elections]] (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|creating a reminder of civility norms]] (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|full report]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
||
* Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. [[phab:T280531|T280531]] |
|||
:*The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the [[:mw:Extension:Score/2021 security advisory|mediawiki page]]. |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|Conflict of interest management]]'' has been closed. |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021|A request for comment]] is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021|the Arbitration Committee election]] and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
||
* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. |
|||
:*The [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues|2021 RfA review]] is now open for comments. |
|||
* A [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024|'''New Pages Patrol backlog drive''']] is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|new pages feed]]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
* Voting for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]] election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024#Voting|voting page on Meta-Wiki]] and '''[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/396|cast your vote here!]]''' |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{ |
{{center|{{flatlist| |
||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
||
Line 169: | Line 513: | ||
}}}} |
}}}} |
||
<!-- |
<!-- |
||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) |
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
||
<!-- Message sent by User: |
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1220239146 --> |
||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
==Maxim gun== |
|||
I'm posting here as an FYI, rather than muddy the waters at [[WP:ANI#Subtle vandalism]] or the user TP. As an [[Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys|FCIPA]] (retd.) and [[Representation before the European Patent Office|EPA]] (retd.), I consider "invented" in the first sentence of [[Maxim gun]] sloppy wording. Invention date is rarely either known or legally relevant. I would prefer "developed in 1884", which is supported at [[Maxim gun#Development (1883–1884)]]; the 1884 demonstration shows that Maxim had something that worked, not just a paper patent. I haven't edited the first sentence of the article because of the ongoing discussion, but I did tweak the first one in that section. The patent dates for his invention range 1883-1885, because of the vagaries of C19 patent laws. Yrs, [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 11:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Narky Blert}} Thanks, and I agree. However, an editor has to have a reason when they change a date and if they don't give that reason in the edit summary they should be prepared to explain when asked. Contributors who change dates or other factoids without explanation are a particular problem. Presumably, sources use the imprecise term "invented" and that has been copied into the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I too agree, and notice they as yet haven't. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 06:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
== Discretionary sanctions on Gender Talkpage == |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
Dear Wikimedian, |
|||
Hi, |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
Saw your "discretionary sanctions" note on the Gender Talk page and had a few questions: can I "post a new section" on the Talk page or only on the main page? |
|||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. |
|||
I have something in the way of a rough draft for a new Lead section that addresses the NPOV issues and clearly discusses the wide-ranging controversies on the topic as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Introductory_material_/_Lead required]. But I'd like to post to that Talk page for discussion purposes and didn't want to be subject to any further sanctions. And that particularly as I see that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives BRD document] says "Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first." And I expect what I'm suggesting is likely to be controversial so would like to open it up for discussion first. But I didn't want to spend a lot of time dotting all the Is and crossing all the Ts so it's hardly ready for posting to the main page, although I do have a bunch of links and sources to buttress what I'm suggesting. |
|||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. |
|||
Changing gears though, I wonder what the reasons are for "being under discretionary sanctions". And aren't you obliged to log that somewhere or is that not applicable in this case? Though it was maybe a good idea to close that conversation in any case. |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
But had thought it might have been because they were based on [[WP:ARBGENDER]] and were "authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." But I see that there was something of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Motion:_Remedy_transfer_to_Gender_and_sexuality_shell_case_(February_2021) further clarification] on the "scope" of those sanctions that "Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender." Or "any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors". But neither I nor anyone else in that conversation was talking about pronoun use or bias faced by female editors. So not sure of the justification for that "under sanctions". |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
In any case, please advise, particularly about suggested or allowed ways to proceed with further edits and posting that rough draft for discussion purposes. Thanks. --[[User:TillermanJimW|TillermanJimW]] ([[User talk:TillermanJimW|talk]]) 07:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|TillermanJimW}} This relates to my close of a discussion at [[Talk:Gender#Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/1042077980#Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues|permalink]]). If by "main page" you mean the article [[Gender]]—no, I did not intend suggesting anything happen on the article. If you are asking whether it is ok to post a new section at [[Talk:Gender]], of course you can since you are not topic banned. However, uninvolved administrators have a duty to ensure that discussions in topics under discretionary sanctions do not meander on and on because that drives away good editors. The discussion I closed is over 33K bytes and is not leading anywhere that I can see—it appears to concern a belief that there are some hard-to-specify gender issues that require a criticism section (you might review [[WP:Criticism]]). As stated in my close, {{tq|this page is only available for actionable proposals to add/remove/change specific text, with sources. If there is such a proposal, post it in a new section and focus on '''one specific proposal'''.}} Regarding a log, if you want a lot of background reading, see [[WP:ARBGS]] and the pages it links to. From that link, {{tq|"Standard [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."}} That means [[Gender]] and its talk page are subject to the special regime without any logging requirement. If there were, for example, an ongoing edit war, an admin might impose an extra condition such as [[WP:1RR]]—that would need to be logged at [[WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#Gender and sexuality]]. At Wikipedia, discretionary sanctions are very broadly construed. That means that if a topic has any resemblance to gender or sexuality it is covered by [[WP:ARBGS]]. Clearly, any valid use of [[Talk:Gender]] would be related to that topic, and any invalid use of that page would be disruption which is also covered by WP:ARBGS.{{pb}}If you intend making a proposal, it needs to be '''succinct''' and actionable. For example, it would not be useful to make general comments about a need for NPOV or a need to cover certain points in the article. If you don't know what amendments are needed, you could post a '''brief''' suggestion that certain text (that you quote from the article) is problematic due to a brief and clear explanation that you include, then ask if anyone has suggestions. If they don't, you need to move on. If you do have a specific proposal, you should make it. If it requires a massive new section, you should think very hard because it is likely that such a section would not be helpful. If you want to discuss a rewrite of a section of the article, you could put it your sandbox and ask at talk for opinions. However, no one is permitted to argue interminably because it drives away good editors. If you don't get consensus within a couple of days, move on. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your response and information, particularly for the link to the Criticisms page which I’ll try to plow through and incorporate before posting my “specific proposal”. Some very good points there, particularly about not giving undue weight to either the negative or positive viewpoints. I think there’s quite a bit of merit to both the “orthodox” and the “heterodox” positions and think that much of the “controversy” is due to ambiguous or careless language and various misunderstandings, particularly about defining categories and the use of basic statistics. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> |
|||
== RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins == |
|||
::But apropos of which, I was just skimming through the “Lead sentence” section – partly to see if other talk sections had anything close to the 33k bytes that the “Explicit criticisms” section did. :-) Seems the former has some 22k bytes; still, 33k is probably beyond pale. |
|||
Hi there! Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review]] has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus: |
|||
::In any case, I happened to notice that {{ping|Tewdar}} & {{ping|Newimpartial}} had some exchanges in that section that point to some aspects which I think are important and relevant if not foundational. Hence the pings; hope you don't mind any resulting discussion though I can take it to the Gender talk page or my own later if it gets too lengthy. |
|||
* '''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Require links for claims of specific policy violations]] |
|||
:: But in particular, the latter made a very good point or at least suggestion that defining gender as the “range of characteristics differentiating between masculinity and feminity” can’t reasonably include sex as “a subcategory of gender”, can’t reasonably include sex among those characteristics. As indicated, for example, in the “[[femininity]] article, it is more or less defined as those traits typical of women and girls – the sex of the subjects being studied. Those are the traits strongly “associated” with that group, that are more prevalent among that group than among males. But we can’t possibly decide which traits are more prevalent among a given sex if we have first grouped the subjects '''by''' sex. |
|||
* '''Proposal 3b''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|Make the first two days discussion-only]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 13''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Admin elections]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 14''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Suffrage requirements]] |
|||
* '''Proposals 16 and 16c''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_16c%3A_Community_recall_process_based_on_dewiki|Community recall process based on dewiki]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 17''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 24''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 25''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Require nominees to be extended confirmed]] |
|||
See the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|project page]] for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]]), via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1218650058 --> |
|||
== Response to your question at (a now-archived) RFPP == |
|||
::In the language of statistics which I expect you have some familiarity with, gender is the range of characteristics that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation correlate] to a greater or lesser extent with sex: those that correlate more with females are deemed “feminine” while those that correlate more with “males” are deemed “masculine”. Those other characteristics are the dependent “random” variables while sex is the single common independent “random” variable – it is the common point of reference. It is meaningless or logically and mathematically incoherent to talk about sex correlating with sex, to talk about a random variable correlating with itself. |
|||
Hi! I haven't been able to get on my computer in a few days and didn't see your reply until now. Here's my rationale for connecting those IPs that I tried to post there: |
|||
::Not quite sure how to integrate that perspective into the definition, into that lead sentence, but it seems an important one. But will try to do so in my proposal. |
|||
::Hi, sorry, a bit of a late reply - after blocks of [[User:Default012Google12100]], [[User:DefaultGoogle54321]], and [[User:DefaultGoogle13100]] ([https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=26307672#Global_lock_for_Default012Google12100 all confirmed as TyMega as far as I'm aware]), a series of IPs come in to try and remove or insert the same information as those blocked accounts. While obviously I'm not a CU, it looks like nearly every IP editing this has been hopping around the world and comes up as a proxy/web-host/non-residential IP when I check them. The IPs, specifically on this page, tend to target a small subset of pages (some WWE wrestlers, Patrick Stewart, some rappers, Blink 182) that match up with [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TyMega/Archive#17_December_2020|this 2020 SPI for TyMega]]. Also [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TyMega/Archive#10_March_2024|looks like he's used proxies before]]. |
|||
::However, I might note in passing that much of that “lead sentence” discussion was more '''about''' gender, more about a clear, unambiguous, coherent and rational definition for the term, and less about the goal of '''improving''' the article. Not that I’m complaining as I think we can’t reasonably improve the article without that “rational definition” as a necessary precursor. But not sure that anathematizing any and all discussion about the concept is conducive to reaching that goal. |
|||
Sorry for clogging up RFPP! [[User:Jellyfish|<small style="color:#0080FF;background:#EAEAFF;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">jellyfish</small>]] [[User talk:Jellyfish|✉]] 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::[BTW, fixing my spelling mistake in the header; it was late ...] --[[User:TillermanJimW|TillermanJimW]] ([[User talk:TillermanJimW|talk]]) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
:This relates to an [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/05#Patrick Stewart on stage and screen|archived request for protection]]. We would expect further socks, but I was hoping you could either say that nothing more was happening at the moment or give a diff or timestamp of a recent edit by a user or IP that was not blocked, then say how it is known that the unblocked user is the sock. No solid proof is needed, just an indication. Some justification would be needed for protection and more would be needed for a block. If you can briefly identify a current problem I will protect. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::My apologies, yeah, nothing more was happening at the time of reporting (or now). So far they've been easy enough to pick up on and the proxy IPs tend to get blocked quickly, so if you think they're fine without page protection I'm inclined to agree. I'd rather not ward off the occasional good IP editor who edits the articles. [[User:Jellyfish|<small style="color:#0080FF;background:#EAEAFF;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">jellyfish</small>]] [[User talk:Jellyfish|✉]] 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fine. Let me know when it next flares up but I'll need a diff or two and a brief explanation. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''[[Moana 2]]'' == |
|||
:::: Would you consider [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/taking-sex-differences-in-personality-seriously/ Scientific American] and [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ PubMed Central] to be "reliable secondary sources" as they both republished all or part of an article at [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178/full Frontiers In Psychology]? Of particular note is this graph from Frontier, republished in SA, which clearly refers to population distributions in what is clearly a [[joint probability distribution]]: |
|||
''[[Moana 2]]'' has been getting a lot of edit warring from IPs that are adding unsourced material and deleting sourced material repeatedly against consensus. Please semi-protect if you think appropriate. All the best, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 03:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Joint probability distribution by sex and agreeablenes.jpg|thumb|Overlapping distributions of Agreeableness for men and women. Vertical axis indicates density, or the proportion of the sample in a given area under the curve.|upright=1.8]] |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Listen, the writing credit doesn't have to wait because David G. Derrick received sole "Written & Directed By" credit while Jason Hand and Dana LeDoux Miller received "Co-Directed By" credits. Was that too much to ask?? [[Special:Contributions/2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3|2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3]] ([[User talk:2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3|talk]]) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please comment on the film's article at the article's Talk page. There you can present your sources. See [[WP:V]]. No need to be in such a hurry. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Serial vandal== |
|||
::::(* As an aside, there seems to be a bit of a problem with the copyright for the graph though Frontier article seems clear. I may have to contact the authors but any suggestions would be appreciated. *) |
|||
Is it time to block [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.94.198.226 this vandalism-only account]? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The wonderful Bishonen has dealt with that. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – June 2024 == |
|||
:::: In any case, it is sort of common knowledge - like the statement, in one of the Wiki documents on citations, that Paris is the capital of France - that comparisons of various physiological and psychological traits are based on just those joint probability distributions; it undergirds the whole issue of sexual dimorphism, of being able to say which traits are more common among which sexes. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (May 2024). |
|||
:::: But more particularly, the article on [[femininity]] clearly indicates that "traits traditionally cited as feminine include gracefulness, gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity" - and the "agreeableness" in the graph might reasonably qualify similarly. But the only reason that we can say that is because those traits are '''more''' likely to be found among females than among males. For example, notice in the attached graph that the '''average''' agreeableness for females is somewhat higher - think the SA text says about 0.4 of a standard deviation - than it is for males. And notice also that it is sex, not gender, that is one of the variables being compared - even if it is a discrete, and binary, variable. |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1222103388#Resysop request (Graham Beards)|Graham Beards]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Deskana]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Mets501]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221692285#Desysop request Staxringold|Staxringold]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221620229#Inactive bureaucrat (Deskana)|Deskana]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221956999#Standing down as bureaucrat (Warofdreams)| Warofdreams]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1221703338#Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024|Dreamy Jazz]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II|Phase II]] of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 RfA review]] has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|Phase I]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
* The [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:Nuke|Nuke]] feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [[Phab:T43351|T43351]] |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics|Venezuelan politics]]'' has been closed. |
|||
* The Committee is [[Special:Permalink/1225426349#Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers|seeking volunteers for various roles]], including access to the [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest VRT queue]]. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
* WikiProject Reliability's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|unsourced statements drive]] is happening in June 2024 to replace {{tl|citation needed}} tags with references! '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|Sign up here to participate!]]''' |
|||
---- |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1227360647 --> |
|||
== Deleting material from Talk pages == |
|||
:::: Great deal of evidence that males and females differ not just in the type of gamete that each [[sex]] produces - the necessary & sufficient condition to qualify as such - but also in many psychological traits that contribute to what we define as [[gender]]. I think there's some utility and social value in the latter concept. But I think we have to be clear on how it is that we quantify those traits - and it seems clear that joint probability distributions is one of the better, and quite commonly used, tools to do so. |
|||
A user has deleted material from this talk page several times, and it has been hard to persuade him that we are trying to help him become familiar with guidelines. Can you help? See the edit history here: [[Talk:BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop]]. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I only looked at the latest. It's an inappropriate removal from a talk page but I would let it pass as unimportant. I'll watch for a while. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, but he's done it several times now, to more than one Talk page. Someone told him that it is not the correct thing to do, but I think he needs to hear it from an admin. All the best, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Module:ICCProgression]] == |
|||
:::: Not at all sure how to integrate such perspectives - and sources - into the Gender article, but it seems like it might be a useful discussion to have. --[[User:TillermanJimW|TillermanJimW]] ([[User talk:TillermanJimW|talk]]) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not sure you are interpreting my messages as intended. My talk page is not available for a discussion regarding article content—use [[Talk:Gender]]. However, [[Talk:Gender]] has '''filled its quota of non-actionable lets-have-a-discussion''' forum-like debate. If you have a specific proposal (add certain text, remove certain text, change certain text), post on article talk with sources. If you do not have a specific proposal, you might re-read my above paragraph with "ask if anyone has suggestions". The situation is that [[Gender]] is a topic under discretionary sanctions. Such topics are often subject to prolonged and unfocused debates. That is disruptive. Administrators are supposed to stop disruption. If there is any ongoing disruption, I will stop it. Tools available are providing advice, topic bans and blocks. I think I have provided enough advice unless you have something new and specific to ask. Regarding secondary sources, I would have thought that a topic like gender would have a library full of scholarly works, allbeit some of which would be written by advocates. Scientific American and PubMed Central are wonderful but are not what I had in mind with "as if studying for a uni exam" and the latter is not anything like a secondary source. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hi John, a user asked me to import this module on bnwiki. So, I imported [[:bn:মডিউল:খেলাঘর/আফতাবুজ্জামান/পরীক্ষা|here]] for testing. As this module produce en digit, so i did [[:bn:Special:diff/7412734|this edit]]. On other module, usually this converts en to bn digit but it is not working here (see [[:bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:খেলাঘর ২|test page]]). I am not sure what i am doing wrong. If possible, please take a look. [[User:আফতাবুজ্জামান|আফতাবুজ্জামান]] ([[User talk:আফতাবুজ্জামান|talk]]) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Bravefencer365 == |
|||
:That was too easy! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Vandal returns to CKY article == |
|||
I'm the person behind the recent ANI thread regarding [[User:Bravefencer365]], as he's continued his subtle vandalism since then. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.38_Special&diff=next&oldid=1033856533&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colt_Detective_Special&diff=prev&oldid=1042494127&diffmode=source] [[User:Loafiewa|Loafiewa]] ([[User talk:Loafiewa|talk]]) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Most of their edits are good. Per [[WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU]], it is possible that {{user|Bravefencer365}} cannot see talk page notifications and that may be why they have not answered the question I left on their talk. I would block if the edits were clearly a problem. Consider your first diff above. That changed 22,500 psi to 22,000 psi. As far as I can see, that edit is good according to what the reference says so I won't take any action at the moment. Given that the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Subtle vandalism|ANI report]] is still open, it would be better to raise new issues there so that the points are more easily found if needed in the future. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Would you mind revisiting the [[CKY (band)]] article? You recently blocked an IP editor there for edit warring after they continuously deleted sourced information in favor of incorrect info. They’ve returned using the same IP address, as well as a new IP, and are continuing the same pattern. Article protection may be needed, if possible. Thanks. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 19:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Asking why an edit needed to be hidden == |
|||
:{{ping|NJZombie}} Digging around shows that I blocked {{user|82.35.138.237}} for a week on 6 May 2024. The IP has a point in that [https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/11/07/cky-what-does-it-mean the ref] does not mention anything I can see about "original name" or "abbreviation". The infobox claim of "also known as" is also not mentioned. I will semi-protect [[CKY (band)]] for a month due to the long-term shifting IP edit warring but the issue needs to be examined on article talk. The solution is to find another reliable source that justifies the current wording or to reword the article to align more closely with what the ref says. The IP's edits are definitely not vandalism—see [[WP:VAND]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Within the source, the interviewer mentions that the "the real name of the band is Camp Kill Yourself" framed within a question to the drummer, Jess Margera who goes on to explain that they wanted expand the name into making a horror film. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 23:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I saw that. It said nothing about "original name" or "abbreviation". I'm just pointing out what should occur and there is no benefit from continuing here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There are now four sources backing up both that the band's name is short for Camp Kill Yourself, and that Camp Kill Yourself is what the band went by previously before shortening it. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 01:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Page merges pending for long time == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, I'm wondering why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman&curid=43935058&diff=1043249788&oldid=1043246473 this edit of mine] had to be removed from public view. Can you give me any more information about the alleged editing by this editor and why it can't be mentioned on-wiki, please? [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 04:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I replied at your talk. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks buddy! Left you another question there about these people-that-cannot-be-named! Wow! [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 04:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi {{noping|Johnuniq}}, just noting for transparency that I've [[WP:OVERSIGHT|suppressed]] that edit. I'm not sure if you [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|requested oversight]] as I've not looked at the email queue today ~[[User:TheresNoTime|TNT]] (she/they • [[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]]) 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{user|MPS1992}} has been indefinitely blocked by Arbcom. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, I found your name on a list of recently active admin. I want to bring to your attention an issue that has been annoying me for some time, but I don't know how to handle it myself. This relates to the birds of New Zealand. |
|||
:Wow. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[Talk:Little_penguin]]: Merge discussion opened August 2023, closed with result of merge April 2024. As of today, the actual merge hasn't happened yet. |
|||
== Re: Your comments on "Wi Spa Controversy" arbitration/enforcement case == |
|||
[[Talk:Yellow-eyed penguin]]: Merge discussion opened October 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. |
|||
Hi Johnuniq |
|||
[[Talk:New Zealand raven]]: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. |
|||
I had a question re: you comment in the report at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] (and as an aside, to share my feeling that this report was filed by an article creator with [[WP:OWN]] issues simply as a form of harassment and to maintain control of an article which other editors have found to have POV issues.) |
|||
You wrote: |
|||
'' The lead at [[Wi Spa controversy]] currently has a completely gratuitous "({{Aka}} [[gender-critical]] feminists or [[TERF]]s)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article.'' |
|||
[[Talk:Xenicus]]: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. [[User:Columbianmammoth|Columbianmammoth]] ([[User talk:Columbianmammoth|talk]]) 03:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
My question--should the use of "TERF" be removed from the whole article? There are editors who consider it to be a slur, regardless of whether it's used by some online news sources, and that we shouldn't be using it as a description of particular people (the Wiki entry also acknowledges that some consider it a slur). There are other issues with the lead/body of the article, such as it promulgates a false, somewhat defamatory claim that there is some alliance between gender-critical (GC)feminists (the so-called "TERFs") and neo-fascist/Pround Boy, Capitol-storming types. The lead now as written (which the article creator refuses to correct, and has reverted attempts at correction) places these feminists as the leading force instigating the protests/violence at Wi Spa, when it's pretty universally understood that the primary cause was anti-trans protests organized by the right wing/neofascist types, as well as antifascist counterprotests organized in response, with GC folks mainly involved via chatter on fringe feminist websites. The violence (which is largely what made these protests notable) was basically between the fascists and the antifascists (and the typically out of control LAPD). |
|||
:{{ping|Columbianmammoth}} I'm sure you've seen it, but for completeness, the documentation is at [[WP:MERGE]]. Merging these articles will be tricky because it should be done by someone with a good understanding of the relevant science. In principle, anyone could do a merge but it is highly likely that an amateur would introduce errors or at least misleading statements. It would always be helpful if a merge discussion were formally closed but whether or not that happens, the situation will not be known until a volunteer actually does a merge. If that merge were reverted, it would be necessary to revisit the discussion and try to get more input, for example from relevant wikiprojects. A merge reverted by an editor in good standing would require a formal close to the merge discussion. However, it is impossible to anticipate what might happen until a merge is attempted because many people will decline to get involved in yet another discussion but might have an opinion if an edit to an article occurs. An admin can't be of much help in a situation like this unless there is disruption—for example, if someone reverts but does not engage in a discussion. Problems such as the cases you have listed won't be resolved unless someone who understands the topic applies [[WP:BOLD]]. Feel free to contact me if problems occur. Asking at [[WP:Teahouse]] is also available because that will get more people involved in offering an opinion, although you might not get much actual help unless someone there is familiar with the topic. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Possibly miscellaneous information== |
|||
Thanks! BTC [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 20:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Hi. An anonymous user, very likely dynamic, persisted adding supposedly irrelevant content on [[Microsoft Update Catalog]]. Can you do something about it?[[Special:Contributions/197.2.86.104|197.2.86.104]] ([[User talk:197.2.86.104|talk]]) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Boodlesthecat}} Sorry but I'm not going to be drawn into the discussion any further than the advice I offered at WP:AE. You have to work within the constraints of how things are done here. It's a bit of a farce with people on both sides knowing full well that they are playing a game trying to out-wait their opponents. You have to be [[WP:CIVIL]] at all times, and base arguments on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and do not offer strong opinions unless describing a conclusion from a reliable source. Showing emotion or a strong personal view is fatal because content has to be [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] and personal opinions work against that. Ultimately, whereas [[WP:NOTVOTE]] applies, in practical terms what happens at an article depends on the experienced editors participating, and how many of them fall on each side of an argument. Fighting against a majority of experienced editors is a waste of time and a path to a short wiki-career. A problem is that there is a tendency for topics like this to attract people with a strong view but who have learned how to play the game.{{pb}}My comment at WP:AE was suggesting that [[Wi Spa controversy]] should start by outlining the ''facts''—certain events occurred and certain protests resulted. After covering the value-free facts, there might be attributed opinions regarding the participants and whether they were TERFs or right-wing or whatever. That's how an article should be written but I will stay [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]. The official options are listed at [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. That boils down to patient discussion based on sources, requesting opinions using neutral statements at noticeboards, and possibly an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your reply and suggestions. I'm finding this a bit frustrating and dismaying, since what I've done is attempt to provide some well sourced good faith edits in an attempt to bring some neutrality and order to a sloppy and clearly biased article. I guess I wasn't expecting to come up against the same obstinancy from editors who are "experienced" (ironic term, I've been editing and writing since long before they were born) whose main talent seems to be being adept at the "game-playing" you reference. identical to the gaming that I had to deal with years ago on WP when I was up against a cabal of antisemites who were injecting Jew hatred into multiple articles--a group that including admins who were discovered to be coordinating their actions (including seeking sanctions against their "enemies") in private chats. I barely a week I've come up against the same crap, complete with a gratuitous, underhanded attempt by the de facto article "owner" to get me sanctioned. I've attempted rational discussion on the talk page, but come up against filibustering game playing there too, along with passive-aggressive attacks that flip into victim-playing. Oh well. Cheers, [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 04:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tpw}} This is how Wikipedia works, on contentious topics. The only real solution is to create an [[WP:RFC]] on each item you really care about, and then accept the result(s). It's good to accept going in to any of these topics or articles that the ride is going to be bumpy and possibly/likely unfair, and to know what your best (or only) options are. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 05:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes thanks. Still dismaying and sad, but thanks. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 05:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== fat fingers actually == |
|||
==2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A / rangeblock== |
|||
You performed a rangeblock earlier today of 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:0:0:0:0/64 giving the reason of talk page abuse. Not sure if you want to reset the rangeblock with talk page access revoked, but the edits of {{ip|2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A}} show that talk page abuse is still ongoing. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 08:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, I see they went wild on that IP talk page and it was deleted. I set it so they cannot edit their own talk. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
But thank you for cleaning up after them. I know what other incident you are talking about though. Given that I don't have Discord installed, was there a better what to handle that? Subscribing [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Elinruby}} I was just passing and noticed your heading, then worked out that another admin had blocked the problem and removed their posts from ANI. Rather than a heading, you might have just added a comment to the ANI section asking that the account be blocked immediately. OTOH, it's probably not necessary at a noticeboard like that where it is inevitable that someone will notice and deal with it. I'm sure you know the theory that reporting at [[WP:AIV]] usually gets quick results. Where someone is just posting nonsense as in this case, fast action is not needed. If something was a real problem such as repeated [[WP:BLP]] violations, you might just post at [[WP:AN]]. Passers by will say you should have been at ANI but when something significantlyht bad is happening, AN is the right place in my humble opinion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Ok so thank you for the venue advice at the end there but just for record I see from the first part you thought the header was a vandalism report. No, what I thought you noticed was that I picked somebody at the recently active admins list and made a post to their talk page. The header was me in a fit of madness hitting publish on a half-written ANI post somewhere in this sequence of events.(I changed the header). Sounds like in your opinion posting to ANI or AN would have been better. In any event, that was a much better and more detailed answer to the question than I was expecting, so thank you for that. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 08:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==The Wachowskis== |
|||
Hi, this is re: this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1043842728#The_Wachowskis, and your reply at 03:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC). The established user {{redact}} is the transphobic troll. In these archived 4channel posts, you can read him drafting this edit: https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156147265, https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156146826 in consultation with other transphobes. [[User:Inanna K|Inanna K]] ([[User talk:Inanna K|talk]]) 11:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Inanna K}} Wikipedia is a confusing place and I have redacted your above attack on another editor—we don't do that unless at a noticeboard such as [[WP:ANI]] and with on-wiki evidence (per [[Joe job]], stuff on random websites may not be useful evidence). I believe the issue concerns [[The Wachowskis]] and [[Special:Diff/1043743879|this edit]] which concerns living people. What I said at the requests for protection page is correct—the [[WP:PROTECT|protection policy]] does not help in a situation like that, particularly with an unanswered discussion started on article talk. The way to proceed is to briefly explain the situation at [[WP:BLPN]] without mentioning other editors. You can use the "this edit" link in this comment and ask whether it is suitable and whether [[MOS:DEADNAME]] applies. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:20, 22 June 2024
I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise. |
Uploading images
Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary.
- File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg
- File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg
- File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg
Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the WP:MTC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dedhert.Jr: I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, WP:IMAGES has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at WP:HELPDESK or (if uploaded at Commons) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page
Recently this page's protection was raised.
The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet.
Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage.
But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags.
The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description.
A disputed and misinterpreted claim
"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion.
An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org.
While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article.
I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism.
Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide".
I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing
page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article.
Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself.
I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion
I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this.
Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Salekin.sami36: This refers to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and the fact that I applied indefinite WP:ECP protection as a result of a request at WP:RPPI. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a contentious topic. All you can do is make suggestions at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See WP:DR which would probably lead to an WP:RFC. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved,
- after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.Salekin.sami36 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Horse racing distance template
Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment on revert on Robert FitzRoy
You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk (Talk:Robert FitzRoy) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Chris Brown ECP
Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on Chris Brown since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:PolParsEstCat
Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on 212 pages, which per WP:HRT is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: I template-protected {{PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at 29 February 2020. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at WP:RPPD where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to go to WP:RFPD. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have WP:TRAINWRECK issues.)I will note that I have been making use of WP:RMT when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive IP range...still
I'm not the OP, and this isn't the original notification location, but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mapsax: Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at Talk:WTIC-FM which would justify a longer block (the previous block for Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and attempts to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. Mapsax (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
-
- Ameliorate!
- Ancheta Wis
- Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
- Cobi
- Ev
- Moondyne
- Worm That Turned
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Highly inappropriate warning of a block
Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq warned me that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- My sense is that it's getting worse. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Spanish protests edit
Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia
I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC))
- Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023 Spanish protests (original title)
- Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See WP:DR for dispute resolution and WP:RM for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, again
Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Twomad page protection
Why did you decide to extended-protect Twomad when both requests (1, 2) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? Doublah (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Doublah: Something confusing happened with Twomad. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume ScottishFinnishRadish had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the protection log which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
User Nangaf talk page
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. Nangaf (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nangaf: My options for dealing with long-term abusers are limited—it boils down to blocking everyone involved. A bunch of stuff is going on here at the moment and it looks like I got confused and blocked 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44 which does not cover 2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8 who posted at your talk. I have watched your talk since noticing the shifting IP turn up there during a noticeboard discussion, I think at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Heiner Rindermann. I have to go elsewhere and don't have an opportunity to investigate further. I can see that you are doing everything correctly and are concerned about third-parties interfering at your talk (I saw the history which shows it has happened before). WP:BMB has enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic opposers who favor complete liberty. I'm one of the former and keen advocate of WP:DENY so I am afraid you will hear from me again if the IP continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Incivility
Would you please look at the discussion on Talk:Grace VanderWaal? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I removed a comment and will watch. It's minor but has to be prevented. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Sri Lankan Armed Forces
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
AN
Thank you for your comment here. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see this ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert. That is bad and I would have blocked the IP /64 range for a lot longer than 72 hours if I'd seen it, although I can see the argument that there's not much point with a throw-away IP. Feel free to contact me if you notice other bad things. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Fiddling
You do understand that "what is the point of fiddling with this" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Up the Walls (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please use the appropriate talk page: Template talk:Protection table. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi, Jon. This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism:
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll watch those two articles for a while but won't act unless more occurs. As you know, the battle continues at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes and I would have no problem telling someone to give it a rest until that RfC is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,--Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda! I have to say I haven't done anything in recent months to warrant being rewarded but thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of WP:BLP, as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but the photos in this New Zealand article look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, what an amazing story. It's strange that such an unusual marriage between US citizens living in the US (I think) has only been noted by The New Zealand Herald. In a few more days, there might be other reports. The photo credit in the nzherald article credits Facebook. I don't know but it's possible that a verified account at Facebook posting about their wedding might be a RS. I would ask for opinions at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Appreciation...
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins?Four of Sixteen (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend proceeding slowly and waiting for opinions at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sources into..... Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
HELP NEEDED....
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. Four of Sixteen (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's better to write meaningful headings (not "HELP NEEDED....") and you should mention what you are talking about (what glitch? what inquiry?). Information about the bell icon is at Help:Notifications. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- It had a glitch that every time I logged in under a old, now terminated account, I got thrown out and had to use another, my current account to log in. A bug caused this to happen. Now I got some graphics issues going on. Is there a bug on here or is my Android phone acting up? Appreciate the help. The announcement about what happened is not only on my user page, but in my contribs as well. Four of Sixteen (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Module:Age
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but I need to understand exactly what you mean. Please provide an example of wikitext you would like to enter and what it should produce. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- For example, here you enter {{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean Template:Start date? That does not seem to have anything to do with Module:Age. That template wants year/month/day, for example,
{{start date|1993|02|24}}
is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module:
{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}
→ 11383
- I recommend using the following which is hard to mess up:
{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}
→ 11,383
- Using
{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}
would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying functiongetDates
to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)- The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is hard to talk in abstract terms. What do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?
{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}
If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is {{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the wanted output from {{MDY|2|5|1993}}? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I plan on using the templates that are typed at the bottom of the Age module. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the wanted output from {{MDY|2|5|1993}}? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is {{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?
- I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is hard to talk in abstract terms. What do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module:
- I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean Template:Start date? That does not seem to have anything to do with Module:Age. That template wants year/month/day, for example,
- For example, here you enter {{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example:
{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}
→ 793{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}
→ 793
A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, {{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}
. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in Module:Age/sandbox. See the following diff.
- Module:Age • Module:Age/sandbox • different (diff)
Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed the module I imported to the wiki, but it won't allow to values to be displayed for other than "Birth date and age". I've added "Extract" and Death date and age" to the wiki, so far. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{extract}} uses Module:Date to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example
{{extract|April 1, 2024}}
or three numbers, for example{{extract|2024|4|1}}
. I won't be changing that. - What does
{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}
display? - If something does not work, you would need to provide an example of wikitext used as input and the exact output that is displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter now. It was because I had the dates the wrong way round, didn't import the "If preview" modules and nor did I import the "Main other" template. Anyway, thanks for all the help you've been to me to achieve what I've needed to do :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{extract}} uses Module:Date to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example
Signature Requirements
Hey, I saw you undid my change to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states:
- A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.
- It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents.
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ThunderPeel2001: Please discuss issues on the appropriate talk page, WT:Signatures. That provides an easily found history of discussion relevant to the page and gives those watching an opportunity to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
That IP LTA range again
Hi Johnuniq,
Remember that R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February? Remember how there was some question about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has returned to the topic area, so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted.
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann, but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.)
Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the exceptions to topic bans listed at WP:BANEX is reverting "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Now that the discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached a clear conclusion that this material violates BLP policy and must be removed, restoring it seems to qualify as an example of an obvious violation, and my revert is an exception to topic bans as defined by that policy. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed Joe job. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well who it was. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Johnuniq Oddly enough this one blocked me earlier this afternoon. The strange part is it lasted for one pending edit (which directed me here in the block message) and then seems to have been fixed.
- Awshort (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Johnuniq experienced this again tonight (currently), but I went to whatismyipaddress.com to try to figure out the issue.
- 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40
- Blocked
- 2600:1004:b118:*:*:*:*:*
- Me, on Verizon's cell service.
- The website above shows it as ISP:Verizon Business, so figured I would give an update since it may affect other users as well.
- Awshort (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: A block of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 applies to all IP addresses that start with
2600:1004:B1
. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: A block of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 applies to all IP addresses that start with
- @Awshort: Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well who it was. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed Joe job. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Moana 2 - please semiprotect
There is a huge amount of IP disruption here. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The Merchant of Venice
Can you or somebody do something about The Merchant of Venice? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. Masato.harada (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- My note at the talk of AlexAndrews is dated 06:14, 22 April 2024. Since then, only one edit has occurred at The Merchant of Venice and it was to add an innocuous external link. My suggestion would be to start a new section at article talk with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text or to restore a particular version. Then see what other opinions are presented. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. I will watch and ensure edit warring against consensus does not occur. Editors do not need to respond to everything posted on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment "Edit warring against consensus will not occur." and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had one comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- [1] Again, I'm fighting my sarcastic urges, and again, I hope... Nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had one comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment "Edit warring against consensus will not occur." and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was unaware until now that I was being discussed behind my back on this talk page, but I see that another editor from the article's talk page managed to find this discussion.
- For the record, I am not "waging a campaign to completely rewrite" the article; I am adding encyclopedic content to improve the article.
- I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors appear to be threatened by the addition of encyclopedic content to the article, especially when the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
AlexAndrews (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
- If you have not disabled notifications, you would have been notified about this discussion in my 23 April 2024 comment. You can probably still see the notification by clicking the bell icon at the top of any page. It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article. The problem is that others disagree. There is no practical way for disputes at Wikipedia to be resolved other than through discussion ending in WP:CONSENSUS. At the moment, your proposals do not have consensus. That means you are likely to be blocked if disruption continues. You can get independent opinions and advice at WP:Teahouse. If you do that, please do not try to explain details about the issue—they won't want to know. Questions people there might offer opinions on are (a) who has consensus at Talk:The Merchant of Venice; and (b) what might be done to resolve the disagreement. The standard answer regarding (b) is at WP:DR. I was going to say a bit more but while looking at another page I just noticed that AlexAndrews (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Since I've written all this, I'll post it anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There is renewed IP vandalism there. Would you kindly semi-protect? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Response to your question at (a now-archived) RFPP
Hi! I haven't been able to get on my computer in a few days and didn't see your reply until now. Here's my rationale for connecting those IPs that I tried to post there:
- Hi, sorry, a bit of a late reply - after blocks of User:Default012Google12100, User:DefaultGoogle54321, and User:DefaultGoogle13100 (all confirmed as TyMega as far as I'm aware), a series of IPs come in to try and remove or insert the same information as those blocked accounts. While obviously I'm not a CU, it looks like nearly every IP editing this has been hopping around the world and comes up as a proxy/web-host/non-residential IP when I check them. The IPs, specifically on this page, tend to target a small subset of pages (some WWE wrestlers, Patrick Stewart, some rappers, Blink 182) that match up with this 2020 SPI for TyMega. Also looks like he's used proxies before.
Sorry for clogging up RFPP! jellyfish ✉ 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- This relates to an archived request for protection. We would expect further socks, but I was hoping you could either say that nothing more was happening at the moment or give a diff or timestamp of a recent edit by a user or IP that was not blocked, then say how it is known that the unblocked user is the sock. No solid proof is needed, just an indication. Some justification would be needed for protection and more would be needed for a block. If you can briefly identify a current problem I will protect. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, yeah, nothing more was happening at the time of reporting (or now). So far they've been easy enough to pick up on and the proxy IPs tend to get blocked quickly, so if you think they're fine without page protection I'm inclined to agree. I'd rather not ward off the occasional good IP editor who edits the articles. jellyfish ✉ 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Moana 2 has been getting a lot of edit warring from IPs that are adding unsourced material and deleting sourced material repeatedly against consensus. Please semi-protect if you think appropriate. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Listen, the writing credit doesn't have to wait because David G. Derrick received sole "Written & Directed By" credit while Jason Hand and Dana LeDoux Miller received "Co-Directed By" credits. Was that too much to ask?? 2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Serial vandal
Is it time to block this vandalism-only account? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Deleting material from Talk pages
A user has deleted material from this talk page several times, and it has been hard to persuade him that we are trying to help him become familiar with guidelines. Can you help? See the edit history here: Talk:BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I only looked at the latest. It's an inappropriate removal from a talk page but I would let it pass as unimportant. I'll watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi John, a user asked me to import this module on bnwiki. So, I imported here for testing. As this module produce en digit, so i did this edit. On other module, usually this converts en to bn digit but it is not working here (see test page). I am not sure what i am doing wrong. If possible, please take a look. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Vandal returns to CKY article
Would you mind revisiting the CKY (band) article? You recently blocked an IP editor there for edit warring after they continuously deleted sourced information in favor of incorrect info. They’ve returned using the same IP address, as well as a new IP, and are continuing the same pattern. Article protection may be needed, if possible. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @NJZombie: Digging around shows that I blocked 82.35.138.237 (talk · contribs) for a week on 6 May 2024. The IP has a point in that the ref does not mention anything I can see about "original name" or "abbreviation". The infobox claim of "also known as" is also not mentioned. I will semi-protect CKY (band) for a month due to the long-term shifting IP edit warring but the issue needs to be examined on article talk. The solution is to find another reliable source that justifies the current wording or to reword the article to align more closely with what the ref says. The IP's edits are definitely not vandalism—see WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Within the source, the interviewer mentions that the "the real name of the band is Camp Kill Yourself" framed within a question to the drummer, Jess Margera who goes on to explain that they wanted expand the name into making a horror film. NJZombie (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Page merges pending for long time
Hi, I found your name on a list of recently active admin. I want to bring to your attention an issue that has been annoying me for some time, but I don't know how to handle it myself. This relates to the birds of New Zealand.
Talk:Little_penguin: Merge discussion opened August 2023, closed with result of merge April 2024. As of today, the actual merge hasn't happened yet.
Talk:Yellow-eyed penguin: Merge discussion opened October 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened.
Talk:New Zealand raven: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened.
Talk:Xenicus: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Columbianmammoth: I'm sure you've seen it, but for completeness, the documentation is at WP:MERGE. Merging these articles will be tricky because it should be done by someone with a good understanding of the relevant science. In principle, anyone could do a merge but it is highly likely that an amateur would introduce errors or at least misleading statements. It would always be helpful if a merge discussion were formally closed but whether or not that happens, the situation will not be known until a volunteer actually does a merge. If that merge were reverted, it would be necessary to revisit the discussion and try to get more input, for example from relevant wikiprojects. A merge reverted by an editor in good standing would require a formal close to the merge discussion. However, it is impossible to anticipate what might happen until a merge is attempted because many people will decline to get involved in yet another discussion but might have an opinion if an edit to an article occurs. An admin can't be of much help in a situation like this unless there is disruption—for example, if someone reverts but does not engage in a discussion. Problems such as the cases you have listed won't be resolved unless someone who understands the topic applies WP:BOLD. Feel free to contact me if problems occur. Asking at WP:Teahouse is also available because that will get more people involved in offering an opinion, although you might not get much actual help unless someone there is familiar with the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly miscellaneous information
Hi. An anonymous user, very likely dynamic, persisted adding supposedly irrelevant content on Microsoft Update Catalog. Can you do something about it?197.2.86.104 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
fat fingers actually
But thank you for cleaning up after them. I know what other incident you are talking about though. Given that I don't have Discord installed, was there a better what to handle that? Subscribing Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: I was just passing and noticed your heading, then worked out that another admin had blocked the problem and removed their posts from ANI. Rather than a heading, you might have just added a comment to the ANI section asking that the account be blocked immediately. OTOH, it's probably not necessary at a noticeboard like that where it is inevitable that someone will notice and deal with it. I'm sure you know the theory that reporting at WP:AIV usually gets quick results. Where someone is just posting nonsense as in this case, fast action is not needed. If something was a real problem such as repeated WP:BLP violations, you might just post at WP:AN. Passers by will say you should have been at ANI but when something significantlyht bad is happening, AN is the right place in my humble opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok so thank you for the venue advice at the end there but just for record I see from the first part you thought the header was a vandalism report. No, what I thought you noticed was that I picked somebody at the recently active admins list and made a post to their talk page. The header was me in a fit of madness hitting publish on a half-written ANI post somewhere in this sequence of events.(I changed the header). Sounds like in your opinion posting to ANI or AN would have been better. In any event, that was a much better and more detailed answer to the question than I was expecting, so thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)