Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Blacklist
I saw, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Muong Nha to Mường Nhà, Muong Phang to Mường Phăng, Muong Pon to Mường Pồn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm done for today now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
{{tb|Steven (WMF)}}
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I just wanted touch bases with you on the above mentioned article. Before making major edits to articles, please make sure to check the talk page to make sure that it is not a current educational assignment. I have no discrepancy with your edits to the article. However, they usurp the professor's instructions and the educational process of the course. Essentially, the edits that you made are assignments in the POL 214: U.S. Political Parties course at Illinois State University. The student may now either be required to take on a different article as his assignment or covertly sit back knowing that he has all the answers for the final quiz. ;) On another note, if you are ever interested in participating in the U.S./Global Educational Program, we could always use more Ambassadors. The application process can be found here. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't intend to interfere in a course, I was just building an encyclopedia! Seriously, though, I was aware of the course, even if I wasn't thinking of it when I made the edits (see User talk:Sgelbman#Citation templates). It's just that when I see a new editor improving an article I've got on my watchlist, I try to help out a little, especially when I notice such a glaring hole in our categorization scheme while I'm at it. At any rate, that articles still doesn't have much on Republican Party of Iowa, so there should be plenty of room for improvement.
If you really want to avoid such edits, you could consider using an editnotice on the pages of the articles. (I don't know how you'd word it, though, since you'd want to communicate both "don't make edits the student is going to make anyway" and "we don't WP:OWN the article, please feel free to edit it.")
I'll think about applying for that program, thanks for considering me, but am currently involved in a rather large project (only a few hundred edits to go, but they take a while). Perhaps when I've finished that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at User:Philosopher/Template Test if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <noinclude> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops! When I said "doesn't have much on" I meant "isn't much better quality-wise than". With regard to a talk-page template message, well, a) people are used to ignoring them and b) with poorly-developed articles (and thank goodness someone is developing them!) there often isn't enough of import on the talk pages to make them worth checking in the first place. An editnotice is in-your-face, which means they should be used sparingly, but which also makes them close to ideal for your purposes, imho. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Re:GA nomination for Finally Home
Hey, thanks for telling me. I wasn't aware someone could self-check against that criteria. Thanks, and see you around! Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, that makes sense. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Category creation
Hello Philospher, Any assistance you are able to render regarding the WP maps banner is greatly appreciated - it's all pushing the limit of my wiki abilities :)
Incidentally you look to have made that change live (rather than hidden inside <(!)-- -->) so now the banners link to non existant categories. EdwardLane (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, that one was intentional. I'm going to add a documentation page and create the categories shortly, so I didn't see the point of hiding them. (The workgroups are hidden, though.) The tool isn't working, but the category has some preloaded data for the categories. I'll get them done, but it may take a few minutes. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks ever so much EdwardLane (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm ok looks like I still don't understand something - I was trying to add this to the WikiProject Maps page, but it's a redlink
Basing that on what I see here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Assessment#Statistics
I've been around the houses with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot including going to the web form and running that (thought it didn't include Maps in the dropdown menu- and I had to enter that by hand). I've visited the webform and used it fine for other projects and not had any problems (though I've always selected them from the dropdown). Also a quick look at the Template itself shows this category Category:Automatically assessed Maps articles doesn't exist yet.EdwardLane (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm still getting the categories I created ready - I missed something. I'll get to those shortly. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It should be done. The proper assessment link should be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Maps articles by quality statistics. If I missed something, let me know, but it should be done. Oh, and you're probably going to want to update {{WikiProject Maps/doc}} with examples from your project - right now all of the examples are from the Iowa project, which is better than nothing, but ... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly there - the table itself on that link doesn't exist though. :) EdwardLane (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know, but the Iowa version of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Maps was created by the bot itself, so I don't know that it would be a good idea to create it. Running that webform doesn't seem to make it, but perhaps the scheduled run will? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, than makes sense, thanks very much - I'll keep an eye on it - and if it doesn't pop up in the next few days I'll chase the WP 1.0 bot people. EdwardLane (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan! By the way, there's a second red link on the Assessment page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Assessment) that should also be created by the bot. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the barnstar! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, couldn't have got this up and running without you. EdwardLane (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the barnstar! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Philosopher! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Question on User talk:SuggestBot
Hi,
I've been quite busy, so it has taken me a while to get back to you, but I posted a response to your question over on User talk:SuggestBot. Thought I'd stop by here and let you know, just in case. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Pics
Could you please check more on the missile pics which the uploader claims are free use and taken by the ISPR? How is it a copyright infringement? Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. To make things simple, let's just use File:BaburCruise.jpg as our example. The image states that copyright is probably held by the ISPR, but that it is assumed that it is free use. That assumption appears to be made on the basis that the image was released to the public and is used by others on the internet. However, without an explicit copyright release, we cannot use the image. Releasing an image to the public, as with a publicity photo, is not a release of copyright, nor is publication on a website. Likewise, others' usage is not evidence of a release because they could be using it under a claim of fair use or they could be violating copyright themselves. Barring a specific source for the image and an explicit copyright release, we have to assume that the image is fully copyrighted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Were you going to throw county borders/names on here? Otherwise we could easily color File:Iowa counties map.png or File:Blank Iowa county map.png since the districts are entire county based and not all crazy gerrymandering. CTJF83 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- A good point. Unfortunately, since 99 isn't divisible by 4, there are either 2 or 4 counties which are split, so it isn't quite that simple, though it is definitely doable. Ultimately, though, the current file is just a temporary placeholder until the National Atlas updates its database so we can generate a map like the last one.
- Ideally, I'd like to put the county borders on the Iowa Senate and Iowa House ones too, but I'm not quite sure how to do that yet. As a side note, I've just put a request in at the Graphics Lab on Commons for a list of better "map colors" for all three maps to improve visibility. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to have an equal number of counties, just an (almost) equal population. Counties in the east have more population, then those in the west, so there are few counties in eastern districts then western. But we can wait for the atlas ones too. CTJF83 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. At any rate, there are split counties. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Which? :) CTJF83 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me. I wonder why I thought they'd split them, then. Oh, well; I suppose I'll get right on making/altering that map. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, rather than File:Face-blush.svg, perhaps I should have used Facepalm. My bad. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done. File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks great! Thanks!...in your defense, most states split counties for districts, and Iowa does split counties for State House and Senate :) CTJF83 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done. File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Which? :) CTJF83 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. At any rate, there are split counties. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to have an equal number of counties, just an (almost) equal population. Counties in the east have more population, then those in the west, so there are few counties in eastern districts then western. But we can wait for the atlas ones too. CTJF83 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
United States Education Program
Thanks for your input on various student edits and in particular, those of User:Masuhi, under the direction of her professor, User:Sgelbman. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. That said, if you have questions about instructions made by a professor, please make sure to contact him/her through email to share your concerns, rather than through the talk page interface. It is important that we allow the professor to work with his/her students through a specified curriculum. Offering correction to the professor on the talk page, may give the impression that we are either undermining or not supporting the university and the course. Conversing through email allows the professor to make revisions to the curriculum, while saving face with the students. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's always cool to see people interested in building the encyclopedia! If your comment is in regard to logos, I responded on your talk page. If you are referring to the copyright comment, I felt (and still feel) that a direct and immediate correction was correct, since copyright violation is something Wikipedia takes seriously. Ed. note: rephrased somewhat. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Afghans in Pakistan
Hi, can you please look at the edits of Mar4d (talk · contribs) in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with strong anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look very bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Everytime I neutralize his edits he keeps reverting and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. So far he has reverted my edits more than 5 times in less than 24 hours. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The thread for this is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Afghans in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the POV-warrior Mar4d again came to revert my edits. I started a nice discussion at the talk page Talk:Afghans in Pakistan#Distorting and falsifying but he refuses to explain anything but rather revert or start edit-war.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am a not quite sure that he is still simply edit-warring, since he has only edited once since the block expired, which isn't enough to indicate either edit-warring or non-edit-warring to me. Still, I left a note on Mar4d's page asking him to explain on the talk page why he thinks his version is better. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- His editing in Afghans in Pakistan is disruptive. He is on an anti-Afghan crusade, googling news reports on Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, in which he picks all the bad reports that mention anything negative about Afghan refugees. Even if the news report is speaking about a couple of individuals, he uses it against all the 3 million Afghans.[1] This is pure racism and descrimination as well as W:POV, and his entire edits to the Afghans in Pakistan article is one big W:OR used to make one point, that Afghan refugees are criminals, gunmen, disease infested evil doers, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. This Pakistani POV-warrior wants the Afghans in Pakistan article to present ALL the negative things about Afghans so that people who read it will look at Afghans with disgust. He is basically trying to say with his words that Pakistan is a country like the West (see this copyright infringement of his[2] [3] [4]), all of its 180 milllion people are educated and very good people, and that all the problems in Pakistan are because of the 3 million Afghan refugees. This is pure nonsense, nearly all the Afghan refugees lived and live in isolated refugee camps in the mountains near the Afghan border (click on the official UNHCR map for details) and the majority of them don't to go much into Pakistani cities. I'm an expert on this region and that's why I don't provide you with source to convince you. If you look at all the major terrorism related incidents world wide, nearly all of them involved Pakistanis (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Aimal Qazi, Faisal Shahzad, Aafia Siddiqui, Ramzi Yousef, 7 July 2005 London bombings....) and if you look at all the biggest international crooks you'll find many Pakistanis among them (i.e. Agha Hasan Abedi, founder of Bank of Credit and Commerce International) but Mar4d wants to blame the poor Afghan refugees. These refugees all day think about getting their family fed.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The issue was already raised at the NPOV noticeboard, as mentioned above, so I'm not going to get any more involved at present. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- His editing in Afghans in Pakistan is disruptive. He is on an anti-Afghan crusade, googling news reports on Afghan refugees living in Pakistan, in which he picks all the bad reports that mention anything negative about Afghan refugees. Even if the news report is speaking about a couple of individuals, he uses it against all the 3 million Afghans.[1] This is pure racism and descrimination as well as W:POV, and his entire edits to the Afghans in Pakistan article is one big W:OR used to make one point, that Afghan refugees are criminals, gunmen, disease infested evil doers, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. This Pakistani POV-warrior wants the Afghans in Pakistan article to present ALL the negative things about Afghans so that people who read it will look at Afghans with disgust. He is basically trying to say with his words that Pakistan is a country like the West (see this copyright infringement of his[2] [3] [4]), all of its 180 milllion people are educated and very good people, and that all the problems in Pakistan are because of the 3 million Afghan refugees. This is pure nonsense, nearly all the Afghan refugees lived and live in isolated refugee camps in the mountains near the Afghan border (click on the official UNHCR map for details) and the majority of them don't to go much into Pakistani cities. I'm an expert on this region and that's why I don't provide you with source to convince you. If you look at all the major terrorism related incidents world wide, nearly all of them involved Pakistanis (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Aimal Qazi, Faisal Shahzad, Aafia Siddiqui, Ramzi Yousef, 7 July 2005 London bombings....) and if you look at all the biggest international crooks you'll find many Pakistanis among them (i.e. Agha Hasan Abedi, founder of Bank of Credit and Commerce International) but Mar4d wants to blame the poor Afghan refugees. These refugees all day think about getting their family fed.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Lists of Russians
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
Thx
Thanks for creating the redirect. Whether the original article gets deleted or not, I dislike the aesthetics of an article existing, but a minor spelling variant showing an "Article deleted" message. Personally I'm not opposed to the prod deletion since it's unreferenced, hence impossible for any expansion on the topic. I did a little googling including on books.google.com, but found no concrete references at all, other than to American History X, which was a surprise. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Improving portal visibility on Wikipedia
- As you commented regarding improving the portal name space on the portal discussion page, here's a notification. I've started a new discussion with a specific focus upon increasing portal visibility on the portal discussion page here: Wikipedia talk: Portal - Ideas to increase portal visibility. — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
19th century
I am wondering if you are going to semi the article or should I ask someone else?..Modernist (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll do it, one more question first (at that page). Sorry I hadn't noticed your response yet. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :)...Modernist (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
- Jake Wartenberg
- Emperor • Viridian Bovary
- Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
- 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 mediawiki page.
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
Tech News: 2021-36
15:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Eight years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-37
15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-38
18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2021
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
Tech News: 2021-39
22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Tech News: 2021-40
16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-41
15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-42
20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-43
20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2021
- From the editor: Different stories, same place
- News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded
- Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process
- Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention
- Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia
- Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game
- Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more
- Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp
- Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality
- WikiProject report: Redirection
- Humour: A very Wiki crossword
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
Tech News: 2021-44
20:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:
- The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
- Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
- Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
- Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
- BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
- Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
- Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points
All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-45
20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-46
22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-47
20:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2021
- In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021
- Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained
- From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?
- Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021
- Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent
- Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?
- WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
- Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior
- Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword
Tech News: 2021-48
21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-49
21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Bots Newsletter, December 2021 | |
---|---|
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots. Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots. Overall
September 2019
October 2019
November 2019
December 2019
In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iowa political party templates
A tag has been placed on Category:Iowa political party templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 07:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-50
22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-51
22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 December 2021
- From the editor: Here is the news
- News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
- Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?
- In the media: The past is not even past
- Arbitration report: A new crew for '22
- By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers
- Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"
- Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021
- Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed
- Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all
- Humour: Buying Wikipedia