| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Today's Events
April 3, 2019 |
---|
Birthday
|
Adminship Anniversary |
First Edit Day |
Other events: |
Contents
- 1 WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
- 2 WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
- 3 Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
- 4 Your comments
- 5 Please comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting
- 6 NPR Newsletter No.17
- 7 Hello Chris
- 8 Using incorrect sources
- 9 Your recent AN3 report
- 10 March GOCE newsletter
- 11 Please comment on Talk:List of political parties in Cuba
- 12 FR30799386's User Scripts
- 13 Women in Red April Events
- 14 You've got mail
- 15 Please comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s
- 16 This Month in Education: March 2019
- 17 Grammar
- 18 How is it
- 19 Please comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
Courcelles (submissions)
Kosack (submissions)
Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Nova Crystallis (submissions)
Iazyges (submissions)
Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Your comments
Please tone down your language. Comments such as "...you need to just keeping rowing on your small task on the team and leave it to more-informed editors to fix the issue", "...your minority opinion has left you dis-attached from objective reality. I hope that you follow-through on your rant and become disassociated with The Signpost and perhaps WIkipedia, as a whole" and referring to fellow editors as "braying sheeple" are uncivil and inappropriate. I'm sure that it's frustrating to endure this level of pushback, especially from folks who are unwilling or unequipped to help publish the Signpost, but you need to find a more civil way to voice your opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[
- @Dlthewave: I disagree. A small but vocal minority (in response to some inelegant words from people nit-picky about grammar with a bent toward awkward humor) alleges something on the scale of a hate crime occurred. The former group alleging hate speech, spurred mostly by political beliefs, has attacked editors like Barbara Page, Bri, and Kudpung as if Wikipedia needs to scalp the offending Signpost editors in order to punish thoughtcrime. The latter group of Signpost editors involved (volunteers, all) offered apologies and backed away from the issue only to be followed by more angry rhetoric from the former group. I, however, don't think we need to scalp volunteers providing a community service for their mistake when no malice or ill-will was observed. Had the angry crowd discontinued their assault, I'd've left it alone as I had nothing to do with the essay at hand. But I will not remain silent while innocent but mistaken editors are hounded by fellow editors under the influence of ideological blood lust. The president of my fan club stalks my talk page and will take me back to ANI when he finds evidence enough to block me for thirty days. I'm just recently coming off an unplanned break from Wikipedia after my last visit to the drama board. I feel I've been measured in my effort to restrain the worst instincts of our chattering class, though I imagine the angry editors will accept nothing less than Stalinist show trials and consignments to the gulag. I will not oblige. Certainly, as a free market guy I encourage the consumer to stop reading words that they don't like, especially when those words were provided as a service to help this community find its voice. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to think about what you're doing that would get you blocked for 30 days if someone took it to ANI and stop doing that thing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello Chris troutman,
- News
- The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
- Discussions of interest
- Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
- {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
- A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
- There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
- Reminders
- NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
- NPP Tools Report
- Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
- copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
- The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Chris
May I ask you to close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom? As publisher, you are the obvious person to close it. I'll make some comments over there in a while, but I'm chomping at the bit and think that some "approval from the top" is necessary for me to talk to potential contributors. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones:
Done Welcome to the team. Assuming you turned in your direct deposit form when you onboarded at The Signpost you'll be receiving your salary for this job fortnightly. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Using incorrect sources
I edited a fight result for Jason Von Flue in which he introduced the Von Flue choke to MMA, and it was reverted due to Sherdog's result being input incorrectly. When a "reliable source" is incorrect, why won't Wikipedia choose to be accurate and use the correct result?
Here is another source (besides the video) in which it is called a Von Flue choke: https://mmabouts.fandom.com/wiki/Jason_Von_Flue_vs._Nick_Gilardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- But mmabouts.fandom.com isn't a reliable source, per WP:SPS, so you can't use it. To your question
"why won't Wikipedia choose to be accurate and use the correct result?"
I reply that Wikipedia does not care about what's true. This is an important, though widely unknown, rule here. For example, I was once editing an article about a person I knew and the article mentioned her daughter. She insisted that her daughter was born on a Tuesday but the Los Angeles Times said it was Wednesday. Maybe she was "correct" (like that matters) but she had no secondary source proof. (We don't allow people to upload birth certificates and such.) The reason why is, what if she said her daughter was born yesterday, or 200 years ago, or was never born? I, as an editor, don't know what really happened and it's not my right as an encyclopedist to determine the truth. I collate what the sources say, even if those sources might be wrong because I have no business performing my own research. Ultimately, if you're interested in the article saying what's true beyond what reliable sources say, then you show contempt for the encyclopedia preferring your own narrative of what you think is true. I would not arrogantly assert that the sky is blue or water is wet without having a source because in humbly doing my duty I show what the sources say, casting aside my own preferences and beliefs. This mode of thinking is difficult for many that don't regularly edit here but our rules are in place to protect the greater reliability of the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... Interesting. I honestly didn't realize Wikipedia wasn't interested in truth. Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9c3e (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reductio ad absurdum (a common problem not helped by essay titles like Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, in my view). More accurately, Wikipedia cares about truth and gets its truth only from reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I suspect the IP is correct about the Von Flue choke. My point is that our adherence to sources is more important than propounding what actually happened, because the process is the most effective method we have to stop the RIGHTGREATWRONGS movement. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Point 1: What do you do when the reliable sources become unreliable? In this particular case, Sherdog's Fight Finder (considered the reliable source to go to according to WP:MMA) has become less reliable. Although I have no way to prove this, of course, I was actually the person who entered the Von Flue vs. Gilardi result as an arm-triangle choke on the Fight Finder. I no longer have admin access, so I am unable to fix my mistake--though in my defense nobody knew what a Von Flue choke was back then. (Even Sherdog himself no longer has admin access to sherdog.com). Unfortunately, fight results have become less reliable on Sherdog under the new owners. For example, Naoki Inoue's latest fight (vs. Sean Santella) is not on there (but thankfully is updated here on Wikipedia). Past mistakes on the Fight Finder never get fixed. There are inaccuracies and omissions on Sherdog, and especially when it comes to older fights/events, it is often difficult to find other sources which list the results correctly in order to cite for changes here on Wikipedia.
- Point 2: In regards to this specific fight, I posted a video source as evidence, and Chris Troutman reverted the change and (rather dismissively) wrote "what you think you saw on the video is original research and not allowed; what the reliable source says, even if wrong, is what we go with per WP:TRUTH". Firstly, I found the idea that Wikipedia would willingly choose to be wrong kind of crazy. Secondly, if you show that video to 1,000 BJJ black belts, I would wager a bet that all 1,000 of them would call it either a Von Flue choke (more specific) or shoulder choke (more general). It's not what I "think" I saw; it's just what it is. Like how when you close your hand into a fist and land it on someone's face, it's called a punch. It's irrefutable. So I guess the question is: When is a video (especially when cited) NOT a reliable source? Anyone who watches it can see the truth, and yet it was reverted to a wrong result because of a mistaken entry on another web site. 2601:83:8000:7100:CC48:1DDA:6607:6D41 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- In your point about Sherdog, we've received these complaints before and perhaps the issue needs to be re-litigated at WikiProject MMA. Most of MMA media isn't seen as legitimate by the wider world. We're lucky to trust Sherdog, let alone the other smaller commentators like Luke Thomas on the subject. To your other point, all editors are considered to be dilettantes. Our editors include an actual lawyer and and actual historian but neither of them get to use their own research or analysis here because all Wikipedians are equal and not endowed with privileged access to controlling articles. As for me, I don't know a Von Flue choke from a D'Arce choke and I can't be trusted to make that call. We rely upon sources, right or wrong. Contribute what you think you know to journalism and academia, rather than complain here about your preferred narratives. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent AN3 report
I have closed your AN3 report as "no violation"; more to the point, had I been online at midnight last night I would have blocked you for violating the three revert rule : [1], [2], [3], [4] - WP:BLANKING says specifically': "Note: Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Yup, that was my fault. I thought it was a listed exception but I can see it's not. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, no worries. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
March GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of political parties in Cuba
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of political parties in Cuba. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
FR30799386's User Scripts
Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.
- User:DannyS712/communicator
- User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
- User:DannyS712/Undo
- User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
- User:DannyS712/Readonly
- User:DannyS712/Redirectify
- User:DannyS712/Section-strike
If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Women in Red April Events
April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You've got mail
![Mail-message-new.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20190403161326im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
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.Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This Month in Education: March 2019
Grammar
After I fixed glaring grammatical errors like "The expression was coined in 19th century", you turned up and put them all right back in the article. Is it that you don't know or understand basic English grammar, or that you just don't believe correct grammar is necessary in encyclopaedia articles? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- You removed cited content from mk.ru and zimamagazine.com, so I'm not buying your grammar explanation. If you have an issue with those sources, you're welcome to explain. edit-warring over it is not helping. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still unclear as to whether you comprehend basic grammar rules or just don't care about them. And how about WP:NOTVAND - is it that you are unaware of it or just believe you can follow your own rules? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- IP, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. As Chris has explained, your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content, a violation of our policies concerning verifiability of content. Ungrammatical content is a far lesser concern here than the introduction of unsourced, unverifiable and potentially false information. You can either address your own violations of our policies and comply with them, or not edit at all, but stop attacking other editors for enforcing those policies. General Ization Talk 00:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- " your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content" that is a lie. Why lie? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Study this edit very carefully. Then explain to me how that is a "lie." General Ization Talk 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Won't be back for a while; now blocked for 3 months. General Ization Talk 00:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- " your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content" that is a lie. Why lie? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- IP, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. As Chris has explained, your edits removed cited content and replaced it with unsourced content, a violation of our policies concerning verifiability of content. Ungrammatical content is a far lesser concern here than the introduction of unsourced, unverifiable and potentially false information. You can either address your own violations of our policies and comply with them, or not edit at all, but stop attacking other editors for enforcing those policies. General Ization Talk 00:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Still unclear as to whether you comprehend basic grammar rules or just don't care about them. And how about WP:NOTVAND - is it that you are unaware of it or just believe you can follow your own rules? 146.90.125.54 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
How is it
If you don't mind me asking, but how is it that I leave a comment on Howcheng's talk page and you respond in short order. I did not flag you, so am I or Howcheng on your watch list? Or is there a latest posts page. Just curious. And I responded to your comment but shame on me I was not very attentive and did not flag you currently. Apologies.Oldperson (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oldperson It'll be a watchlist item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Oldperson: TRM (noted above) is correct. I stalk talk pages, Howcheng's among them. I knew Howcheng and many others back when I lived in Los Angeles. Usually, editors don't mind if others (like TRM has) chime in on other talk pages. My watchlist shows me what's going on, which is how I engage on wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)