MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →New Years new page backlog drive: new section Tag: |
Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) →Just a reminder: new section |
||
Line 680: | Line 680: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:TonyBallioni@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=817720435 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:TonyBallioni@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=817720435 --> |
||
== Just a reminder == |
|||
that FIM is dead, long live SN54129. No-one doubts your perspicacity :) cheers, [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">''' >SerialNumber'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''54129'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<sup>...speculates</sup>]] 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 1 January 2018
WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask. |
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
Welcome!
Hello, Usernamekiran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Clay Shaw have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. Sundayclose (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank You!
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
message VTnav (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) |
An award for all of your help dedicated to me becoming a better editor. Thank you! VTnav (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)VTnav
- It has always been my pleasure to teach you. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- lol. Thanks! —usernamekiran[talk] 18:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- S*** happens. Given how many edits I make (and they are all done manually the old-fashioned way) mistakes will be made. I am baffled by this latest one, however. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- yes, that particular edit was a little confusing.
- but as i said earlier, we are humans, mistakes are bound to be made by us. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- S*** happens. Given how many edits I make (and they are all done manually the old-fashioned way) mistakes will be made. I am baffled by this latest one, however. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for your hard work reverting vandalism and reporting vandals - your work is appreciated and helps keep Wikipedia clean!
Keep up the great work -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC) |
- @There'sNoTime: Thanks! It means a lot coming from an experienced user (nothing to do with adminship). Ironically, I dont see myself as a "vandalism fighter", I am doing it for a change. (Also, some of the disruptive edits are fun). I hope I dont mess up while reverting vandalism. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Diplomat!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Keep up the good work. |
Nice to see calm guys are still here. You deserve a barnstar for tackling the situation here and here. Walter West (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Walter West: Thanks a lot! But I sort of failed when the edit war took place, and I didnt know about it. Thanks a again. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Query for general info
@Usernamekiran:, One of my article Shakeel Ahmad Khan was reviewed by you, however it is doesn't show in google search. Is there any coding or indexing problem? Regards--Yavarai (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai
- @Yavarai: hi. Thanks for asking. I will soon look into it. Kindly give me a few hours for that. I will contact you when I find the answer. Also take a look at this: {{ping}} Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Yavarai: sorry i didnt answer you earlier. I checked the source-code of the page, everything is fine on the end of Wikipedia. Pages of any website being indexed by a search engine depends completely on the web crawler of that particular search engine. Regarding google, it usually takes from a few hours to a couple of days. But as the page in discussion is completely okay from our side, all we can do is to wait for google to index it. I hope this answers your doubt. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: sir, it's so nice of you. You are the first person who answered me in details. Got to learn few important things. Thanks angain and warm regards --Yavarai (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Yavarai
- @Yavarai: sorry i didnt answer you earlier. I checked the source-code of the page, everything is fine on the end of Wikipedia. Pages of any website being indexed by a search engine depends completely on the web crawler of that particular search engine. Regarding google, it usually takes from a few hours to a couple of days. But as the page in discussion is completely okay from our side, all we can do is to wait for google to index it. I hope this answers your doubt. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Deep regards for your valuable suggestion. You are really a Barnstar. Regards Yavarai (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC) |
- @Yavarai: Thanks a lot! It is very much appriciated. I believe sharing knowledge/information leads to an increase of your own knowledge/information. Isnt that right Oshwah, and Mz7?—usernamekiran(talk) 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Categories for bot's task
Hi Northamerica1000,
I recently placed a request regarding Wikiproject OC at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_article_talkpages_with_WikiProject. So far, I came up with these categories for the bot. These are the categories that include articles related to organised crime, for the bot. Every article under that category can be tagged with the WikiProject template beyond any doubt. The remaining articles can later be tagged either by a bot, or manually. Do you want to include or remove categories from the following list?
—usernamekiran(talk) 05:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good. I recommend having the bot list the Project banner for articles under the subcategories of all of the categories you listed above as well, and the further subcategories within the subcategories. It would be optimal to get everything tagged as comprehensively as possible on the bot's run.
- As an example, note how Category:Organized crime groups has the following subcategories, along with additional subcategories within those subcategories, with several articles in each subcategory. North America1000 06:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Do you think we should ping bot operator Rob here now? —usernamekiran(talk) 06:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging @BU Rob13: Good idea! North America1000 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Having the bot tag the article talk pages for all categories, subcategories, and subcategories of subcategories listed at the project's category page would be optimal. North America1000 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I definitely cannot do recursive tagging of these types of categories (e.g. including pages in subcategories and sub-subcategories, etc.). I'll need a list of each and every category you want tagged, which does take a while to prepare, but is necessary to prevent errors. Our category trees are generally not very good when you go many levels deep, and sometimes they aren't good even two levels deep. Doing recursive tagging without exhaustively going through and listing each category is almost guaranteed to result in mass errors that I wind up getting yelled at about. ~ Rob13Talk 21:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Thanks for the reply. I moved the list above to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories, so it can be devised on a project page, and to reduce additional clutter on this talk page. North America1000 21:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Moved the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/Bot tagging categories
Crowdfunding
Extensive discussion has occurred on that article's talk page. Flibber2388 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Flibber2388: Yes, I saw that after you reverted my edit. I apologise for the confusion. But in WP:Huggle, your edit looked like vandalism by removal of content. Sorry again. Happy editing. :)
- —usernamekiran(talk) 20:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: You reverted as "unexplained removal of content", but an long edit note was given as reason. Please make sure you read edit notes. -- ferret (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I am not sure what's your point with your message. I already agreed that it was a mistake on my side, I apologised for it as well. I am not an idiot to not to learn from my mistakes. I have already made a note to myself regarding that. Also, "long" is not prefixed with an "an". Kindly do not communicate with me in any manner unless it is an actual point. I hope you uphold my request. You should really put your wikipedia time to work constructively other than threatening me, or finking on me. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I only came to reply because I saw the revert itself on my watchlist (I do not watch your talk), and wanted to make sure you were aware of the edit note. Anyone doing automated patrolling needs to be aware of such, and take care to set valid revert reasons. That IS an actual point, and you made no mention of seeing the edit note so I would not have been aware you had already realized it. Carry on, I have nothing further to say on the topic. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I don't care if you watch my talkpage, or stalk my off-wiki online activity, or even my real life activity. It doesn't matter to me. You came to this talkpage, instead of creating a new section you inserted your comment in appropriate section. Didn't you see there that I already agreed to my mistake? I'm aware that I made a mistake. There is no need to remind me of that, unless you are implying I did this mistake on purpose, and that I'm planning to continue doing it. Is this what you are trying to say ferret? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I meant it as nothing more than a friendly reminder to ensure you check edit notes as you patrol. Nothing more, nothing less. -- ferret (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: If you say so - I will assume you came to this talkpage in goodfaith. I hope the situation will never come where we need to communicate again. I hope the best for you in your life, excluding me. Now you should walk away. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I meant it as nothing more than a friendly reminder to ensure you check edit notes as you patrol. Nothing more, nothing less. -- ferret (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I don't care if you watch my talkpage, or stalk my off-wiki online activity, or even my real life activity. It doesn't matter to me. You came to this talkpage, instead of creating a new section you inserted your comment in appropriate section. Didn't you see there that I already agreed to my mistake? I'm aware that I made a mistake. There is no need to remind me of that, unless you are implying I did this mistake on purpose, and that I'm planning to continue doing it. Is this what you are trying to say ferret? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I only came to reply because I saw the revert itself on my watchlist (I do not watch your talk), and wanted to make sure you were aware of the edit note. Anyone doing automated patrolling needs to be aware of such, and take care to set valid revert reasons. That IS an actual point, and you made no mention of seeing the edit note so I would not have been aware you had already realized it. Carry on, I have nothing further to say on the topic. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I am not sure what's your point with your message. I already agreed that it was a mistake on my side, I apologised for it as well. I am not an idiot to not to learn from my mistakes. I have already made a note to myself regarding that. Also, "long" is not prefixed with an "an". Kindly do not communicate with me in any manner unless it is an actual point. I hope you uphold my request. You should really put your wikipedia time to work constructively other than threatening me, or finking on me. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: You reverted as "unexplained removal of content", but an long edit note was given as reason. Please make sure you read edit notes. -- ferret (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: If one thinks I was being impolite in the conversation, or maybe even rude; then they should see the diffs included in the conversation above. All I did is, I gave Ferret a little taste of his own behaviour. —usernamekiran(talk)
- Please be mindful of WP:POINT then. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not play games and get revenge. This is not helping anyone build an encyclopedia, so please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: Kindly elaborate how I am playing games and getting revenge? I never tried to communicate with ferret in any way
beforeafter the conversation where he threatened to block me. I completely ignored him, on a couple of occasions I even avoided commenting in discussions where he had commented. It was him who initiated this conversation. I thought it was over, and posted the "note" above; and moved on. The only reason I posted the note is so that a third person should not get a wrong impression that I was being impolite or rude in the conversation. I ceased the conversation, I told ferret in extreme explicit words that I will never communicate with him again, and suggested him to do the same. Now why are you stirring it again? Also, it is interesting that even though I had clearly "stopped" of whatever you are accusing me of, you posted a comment here, and nothing on ferret's talkpage, nor you pinged him here. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)- Your comment reads as "This may seem rude, but I'm just doing the same thing to Ferret as I perceived him to have done to me." As in, it looks like you're just being overly rude to get back at him. I didn't leave a message on Ferret's talk page because I had nothing to say to him on the matter. He did nothing wrong here, he merely pointed out you missed an edit notice, which is a valid thing for him to do, whether you have conceded your wrongdoing already or not. I was just making sure you were aware of POINT. I assumed you weren't, considering how blatant of a concession of doing it was in the box above, and most people don't so openly admit to going against it like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fact is fact. I am not going to hide anything. I am aware of "point". I believe it is not disruptive if I posted one reply trying to end the communication (that message was replied to). Hence the communication went on. In the later part of the communication I used similar vocabulary style as used by the person when he communicated with me. This is how communications work generally. I dont see how this is disruptive or "getting revenge". I believe this conversation is over. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your comment reads as "This may seem rude, but I'm just doing the same thing to Ferret as I perceived him to have done to me." As in, it looks like you're just being overly rude to get back at him. I didn't leave a message on Ferret's talk page because I had nothing to say to him on the matter. He did nothing wrong here, he merely pointed out you missed an edit notice, which is a valid thing for him to do, whether you have conceded your wrongdoing already or not. I was just making sure you were aware of POINT. I assumed you weren't, considering how blatant of a concession of doing it was in the box above, and most people don't so openly admit to going against it like that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: Kindly elaborate how I am playing games and getting revenge? I never tried to communicate with ferret in any way
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Hello customer support team, First of all, i would like to thank you in advance for your help and support Themouadrahali (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC) |
- I have no idea whats going on here. Could you please elaborate Themouadrahali? —usernamekiran(talk) 14:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
NoteThis thread is kept only for the purposes of humour, and future reference. I am not an admin, and I didnt do anything which would merit me this, or any particular barnstar/award in last two weeks.
- Yet another barnstar to me from sock.
- —usernamekiran(talk) 19:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Alt account
Hi, I just went ahead and gave your AWB account the same permissions that this account has. Just an FYI! Malinaccier (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Malinaccier: Hi. Thanks a lot for adding me to the user groups. It is appreciated a lot! (also, it feels good to know that I am in "good standing" lol). But would you please remove the other account from page mover, and new page reviewer user groups? I can always make these contributions from my this account. But you are certainly more experienced than me, so I am putting the ball in your court by letting it up to you to decide.
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)- Done I don't think it would be bad to have these on the other account, but I removed them per your request. :) Malinaccier (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Malinaccier: Thanks again. I can always request them if the situation calls for it. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Malinaccier: Thanks again. I can always request them if the situation calls for it. See you around. :)
- Done I don't think it would be bad to have these on the other account, but I removed them per your request. :) Malinaccier (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Move Reviews
Dear Usernamekiran, I see that you've closed the discussion for a move from Sexual surrogate to "Surrogate Partner Therapy." I'm new to wikipedia and still figuring things out, so I appreciate your patience. I do believe there is cause for more discussion. I know that this evening This Is Life with Lisa Ling will be airing an episode about surrogate partner therapy (and using that terminology). I believe this will generate more conversation and provide more information that may sway the discussion. What criteria is needed/appropriate to reopen the discussion? Thank you for your involvement. I am so amazed by wikipedia and its community. Emikokoyo (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC) emikokoyo
- @Emikokoyo: Hi. I apologise for a delayed reply. I was preoccupied with other things. Also, I did not want to make comments without any background info, so it took a little time. Even though the name you proposed is not wrong, the current name was chosen because of a policy WP:Common name. It is like "William Gates" vs "Bill Gates", or "William Jefferson Clinton/William Jefferson Blythe III" vs "Bill Clinton". If we choose these correct, but uncommon names, then most of readers will get confused. Like, "no, founder of Microsoft is Bill gates, this William must be another guy". Talking about this article in particular, the article is about the person/therapist, so correct names would be "surrogate partner", or "sex surrogate therapists". But again, the second name would cause confusion in most (if not all) of the regards. I hope this answers your doubts. If not, please free to ask. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 12:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)- Dear Usernamekiran, Thank you so much for your response. I have a couple of thoughts. One: There is actually a controversy as to whether or not "sexual surrogate" (or "sex surrogate") is an accurate name for practitioners in this field. [1] It has also been stated that "sex surrogate" was a previous name for what is now referred to as "surrogate partner." [2] Two: Would you recommend adding a section in the "sexual surrogate" page that discusses these contentions? And three: Do you think it would make sense to start another page titled "Surrogate Partner Therapy"? In this case, we wouldn't be addressing the practitioner, but the modality itself. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you again so much. Emikokoyo (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) emikokoyo
- @Emikokoyo: Hi. I apologise for a delayed reply again. Even though there are arguments over which name is the most accurate one, the current title seems to be most common name used by the reliable sources. That was the point presesnted by few editors at the move discussion. Your second point is a good idea. I will explain it further at the end of this reply. For your third question: I think it will not be a good idea. Even though your intentions are obviously good here, the newly created article will get deleted according to content forking policy. I think your idea for adding a paragraph about different terminologies is a good one. But these arguments/controversies should be covered by reliable sources as per WP:RS. Once there is this section in the article, a few days/weeks after that you can initiate another move request for "surrogate partner" or some other name. I cant give any guarantee what would be the result of that discussion, but the newly added section will definitely have an effect on the view-point of the participators. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Dear Usernamekiran, Thank you so much for your response. I have a couple of thoughts. One: There is actually a controversy as to whether or not "sexual surrogate" (or "sex surrogate") is an accurate name for practitioners in this field. [1] It has also been stated that "sex surrogate" was a previous name for what is now referred to as "surrogate partner." [2] Two: Would you recommend adding a section in the "sexual surrogate" page that discusses these contentions? And three: Do you think it would make sense to start another page titled "Surrogate Partner Therapy"? In this case, we wouldn't be addressing the practitioner, but the modality itself. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you again so much. Emikokoyo (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) emikokoyo
References
- ^ Andrew Heartman, "Don't Call Me a Sex Surrogate"
- ^ Guthmann, Edward (December 31, 2012), "Male Surrogate's Passion for Intimacy", SF Gate
Why did you add Anti-racist Action to the Organised Crime project?
Hi @Usernamekiran:, I think that categorising Anti-Racist Action as being related to organized crime is confusing, so I have removed the "organized crime" category. If you wish to re-add it, please include justification for adding it on the article's talk page. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @LutherBlissetts: Hi. After reading your message, I (re)visited the article, and realised the inclusion was indeed wrong. I also realised you already removed the tag/template from the talkpage. So thanks a lot for letting me know about my mistake even after you had already fixed it. It is appreciated a lot. I tagged a lot of articles using WP:AWB. While doing that, I practiced caution, but as this article was categorised under "punk gangs", I added the template by mistake. I apologise for the confusion it caused. Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of A.Srinivasa Murthy article
//Hi, Shall I add A. Srinivasa Murthy article again with Newspaper Ref? Please suggest.--Nandhinikandhasamy (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Nandhinikandhasamy: Hi. Instead of creating an article directly, I would suggest creating a draft first: Draft:A. Srinivasa Murthy, and go through process of WP:AFC. It will be lot more convenient. If you have any more doubts/questions, please feel free to ask me. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)//
Hi Usernamekiran, As discussed earlier I have created Draft:A. Srinivasa Murthy, Could you please verify now? --Nandhinikandhasamy (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Nandhinikandhasamy: Hi. I moved two external links inside the article as references. I didn't see the video, but most of the article is unsourced, and it needs more references. I also added two "citation needed" tags on the statements that looks too far-fetched. You can get more answers about anything related to enwiki at Wikipedia:Teahouse. It is question-answer forum. If you post a question there, an experienced editor from that particular field will answer it. Back to the article, it needs more reliable sources to become an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
741st Tank Battalion edit
Hello Kiran,
Hope to clear up the "Unclear citation style" banner you put on the 741st Tank Battalion article. The problem most likely lay with the last previous "editor" before you (Colton.brown) vandalizing the article and typing in "Cprl. Odell Mize Sr." instead of the reflist|group=note line that was in the Footnotes section. I noticed first the odd insert, then it took me another 20 minutes to track down when the change was made and who did it, then fix it. Of course, Colton.brown doesn't exist with an actual User page, so no reprimands can be proferred.
Once I undid that, the citations are easy to follow. The footnotes hold their own as incidental information to the article. The reference citations are abbreviated, following the Chicago Manual of Style, using its format for duplicate notes. The full citations are then listed in the Bibliography IAW the Chicago Manual.
Hope this clears it up and you can remove the banner. Thanks. Greg Bilhartz (talk)
- @Bilhartz: Hi. I apologise for the delayed reply. Generally anybody except the page creator can remove the maintenance tags once the issue has been resolved, in certain cases even the page creator can do it. Thanks for contacting me regarding this. I have removed the tag, and please feel free to remove any maintenance tag from any page if it is not required anymore (ie, if that particular issue has been resolved). In case you cant be sure, you can always ask it on the article's talkpage, or if the talkpage isnt watched by many/not kuch active, you can consult the editor who added the tag, or any experienced user. I apologise for the delay. Thanks again. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Revert
Just as an FYI, I reverted your edit to WT:NPR. While I thank you for trying to get the word out, I think its better to just let it be advertised through the standard venues (Watchlist, CENT, RfA page). That way no one group sees anymore than anyone else and its fair to everyone :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: lol. Yup you are right. I had similar doubts while posting it, thats why i mentioned there that anybody should remove it. Did you see my vote btw? —usernamekiran(talk) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you for your kind words :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Pings not working
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Not_receiving_pings. The bug is being addressed in Phabricator, but making a tweak in your settings should fix the problem for you immediately. I received your ping in regards the wayward editor and the WikiProjects merger. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Hi. Thanks for letting me know about that. Tony Ballioni had provided me link to that phabricator discussion, but I couldn't understand it much lol. (his RfA feels like going on forever.) I also got a notification that my ping to you was sent. That is happening rarely recently. About our editor, his talkpage has a few gentle warnings regarding some other issue(s). I am on mobile for ~30 hours more, and extremely busy with my work. I will start making changes once my work is over, and then I can use my computers for non-work stuff. But what do you think: how should we handle the situation? What should we do in general? —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 07:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- I had been following those WikiProjects but never noticed the discussions he started, probably because I have thousands of pages on my watchlist. I'm generally opposed to the un-informed enthusiasm of new editors. Creating hullabaloo around dormant or new WikiProjects is usually a telltale sign of more motivation than direction. Often I discourage these editors but this time I decided to un-watch the project and let this new editor screw stuff up, get disillusioned with Wikipedia, and leave. I wasn't a member nor was I contributing so I don't feel like I have much ground upon which to oppose someone else's poor ideas. I voiced my disapproval only to register dissent so it was on the record. Do as you will but I don't see myself getting involved with it further. It's just not a hill I want to die on. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure
When this got created: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Intelligence_task_force There was still this (albeit without any sign of acknowledgement on the milhist that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Intelligence the body and or framework was still there, then there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPY sigh oh well lots of possible discussion points I suppose, like it was discussed at project council some time viz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Intelligence/News - no date but... trying to dig in project council archive is never a lucky dip just head banging nowhere land from my experience JarrahTree 14:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: Hi. Yup, there are too many possible interpretations/loose threads out there everywhere regarding that wikiproject. Since long, I have been working in the background to help the project. I am very much welcoming to improve the project, but I would like to see it heading at a target. Currently, all the changes look like they don't have any particular target. They are random. And there was no clear discussion/consensus about anything either. What I would like to do is, to see a discussion, and systematic planning to improve the project; as I mentioned on the talkpage of the project. I am not sure if I am putting my thoughts in words correctly. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 14:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)- nah, as coherent as Adamdaley and I conversed in the very silent project space talk pages over the years after the Hong Kong Wikimania which I attended ... loose ends and entrails imho. Needs a focus and direction - and consensual collaborative agreement 'not to mix projects inside projects - imho - project space should be unitary or (oh dear my sense of humour might mess all this up) something that does not conflate three projects inside a project - there seems to be a delusion that multiple projects can cohabit... (my sense of humour requires me to probably cease my drivel at this point) - I am sure we will all enjoy the ongoing discussions immensely... JarrahTree 15:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Confusing round-robin operation
Hi Usernamekiran, what exactly is happening here? The operation looks incomplete. I think you inadvertently moved a large number of subpages that possibly weren't supposed to be swapped, and you exited the swap operation early, leaving a bunch of pages in the Draft talk namespace. — Andy W. (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, just following up. The subpages of Draft talk:Move/ should generally always be empty, so I took the time to move the displaced subpages in the Draft talk namespace that you left back into the Wikipedia talk namespace. The operation wasn't complete, so I completed the moves of the displaced subpages to the best of my ability. — Andy W. (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy M. Wang:Hi. Thanks a lot for your help. I apologise for creating the mess in first place. Before moving the page(s), I went through Special:PrefixIndex, I think moving all the subpages was a good call. In the past I have made booboos thrice (first mistake was my first robin move/swap ever), and two more in later days; so I am usually cautious about checking for post move clean-up. As there were 40+ pages moved, I must have got confused, and I thought everything was fine. Honestly speaking, I didn't look for inconsistencies carefully, as I am soon going to work on every page individually that was moved (general assessing, merge/redirect/soft-redirect/delete). So I thought I would correct the inconsistencies at that time, if there were any. I apologise again, and thanks again for handling it. I went through my move log, I think you corrected everything. Also, the project is not much active, and I will work on these pages soon, so if there is anything wrong, I will sort it out. Thanks again. It is very much appreciated :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 09:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)- That's fine, no problem, glad this is resolved :) It's possible my script might be a bit at fault (latency when many subpages are involved), or even the database (I've gotten an error once when many many subpages are to be moved), so no worries. Cheers and happy editing! — Andy W. (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andy M. Wang:Hi. Thanks a lot for your help. I apologise for creating the mess in first place. Before moving the page(s), I went through Special:PrefixIndex, I think moving all the subpages was a good call. In the past I have made booboos thrice (first mistake was my first robin move/swap ever), and two more in later days; so I am usually cautious about checking for post move clean-up. As there were 40+ pages moved, I must have got confused, and I thought everything was fine. Honestly speaking, I didn't look for inconsistencies carefully, as I am soon going to work on every page individually that was moved (general assessing, merge/redirect/soft-redirect/delete). So I thought I would correct the inconsistencies at that time, if there were any. I apologise again, and thanks again for handling it. I went through my move log, I think you corrected everything. Also, the project is not much active, and I will work on these pages soon, so if there is anything wrong, I will sort it out. Thanks again. It is very much appreciated :)
Halloween cheer!
- @Northamerica1000: Thanks a lot. It is very much appreciated. You too, enjoy the Halloween :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Joanne Isham) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Joanne Isham, Usernamekiran!
Wikipedia editor Megalibrarygirl just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Reviewed. :)
To reply, leave a comment on Megalibrarygirl's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
M. Street
I posted the requested talk page message.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
Unblock request
- Usernamekiran (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block message:
The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
- Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)
Accept reason: I have granted you an exemption until 12 November 2017 when this block expires so you won't be bothered by it again. I suggest that you tag the Commons' file for deletion since it contains personal information. Just Chilling (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- A screenshot can be found here: File:Autoblock 2017-11-01 03-42-44.png. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I simply rebooted the modem, which gave me a different IP address. Not sure if I should remove my unblock request, or let a sys-op mark it as processed. I am going with the latter one. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Just Chilling: Thanks. I also nominated the image for deletion as per your suggestion. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Just Chilling: Thanks. I also nominated the image for deletion as per your suggestion. See you around. :)
- I simply rebooted the modem, which gave me a different IP address. Not sure if I should remove my unblock request, or let a sys-op mark it as processed. I am going with the latter one. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
- Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
- Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
- A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
- Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
- Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.
- The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Merge
Hi there, when you make a merge proposal, you need to open a discussion about it. I was going to agree with your proposal, but when I clicked Discuss in the merge template, there was nothing to respond to at Talk:Ishqbaaaz. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Hi. I apologise for the confusion. I did not realise the formal merge proposal/discussion was necessary. I mean, I thought it was similar to ProD. I thought, if nobody objected to merge tag, then it would be okay to merge the article after a week (or more time). After getting your message above, I was going to start the discussion, but somehow it skipped my mind completely. I remembered it again after you pinged me at the AfD. initiated the discussion on the talkpage, and notified the original creator about it. Thanks for letting me know. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response. Thanks for considering my points. I don't know that there's a set-in-stone rule for the merge templates, but the only way to really get consensus, or at least try to, is to open a discussion. Also, I hope my notes to you here and at the AfD didn't come across as overly pissy. Wasn't my intention. Thanks and have a good weekend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: lolol no. your comments were very good, precise, and non-bitey. I apologise if my response gave you that impression. It wasnt my intention. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't at all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: lolol no. your comments were very good, precise, and non-bitey. I apologise if my response gave you that impression. It wasnt my intention. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response. Thanks for considering my points. I don't know that there's a set-in-stone rule for the merge templates, but the only way to really get consensus, or at least try to, is to open a discussion. Also, I hope my notes to you here and at the AfD didn't come across as overly pissy. Wasn't my intention. Thanks and have a good weekend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Ninni Cassarà
Hi, I don't know what do you exactely mean with providing links to the articles in Italian Wikipedia, by the way the pic of Cassarà results to be on pubblic demain, according the Italian law after 20 years. In the English Wikipedia I didn't find that option, if I don't declare that I own the copyright then I cannot insert the pic. Anyway, so far I didn't receive any complain and the pic hasn't been removed yet. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Charlie Foxtrot66: Hi. By links, I meant this: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninni_Cassar%C3%A0
On that article, I found the image, it is in public domain. I moved it to wikimedia commons. You can find the transferred image here: File:Antonino cassara.jpg. After posting this comment, I will upload the image to the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)- I have left a comment on the talkpage (here), I think it should be okay. I also transferred Montana's image from Italian wikipedia to commons, just in case if the image you uploaded gets deleted. File:Giuseppe Montana.jpg
If there are any questions or doubts about anything regarding wikipedia, please feel free to ask. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have left a comment on the talkpage (here), I think it should be okay. I also transferred Montana's image from Italian wikipedia to commons, just in case if the image you uploaded gets deleted. File:Giuseppe Montana.jpg
Ok, thanks, what I need more is to find out the techical way to insert pictures without violate any rule. It seems I'm learning, also with you help :-) Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red
Hi there Kiran. I'm glad to see that you have become a member if Women in Red and that you are interested in women spies. You recently created an interesting article on Nancy E. Bone. I hope this is the first of many more. Let me know if ever you need any assistance and feel free to contribute to the WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Grace Banker
Hello:
I ran through the article for you and made a few minor changes to clean it up. As I am in the middle of a GOCE drive to reduce a large backlog of articles that need a copy edit, that's all I have time for. Regards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Badu 'e Carros
Hi Usernamekiran, the source I posted is from the Italian ministery of Justice, sure that is not enaugh? Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
E. Howard Hunt
You are invited to join the discussion of Hunt's writing on the Talk Page: Talk:E. Howard Hunt Your input would be greatly appreciated. BuffaloBob (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
why relist when it's so clear?
I'm perplexed about this relist. The only opposition is from a Hong Kong guy who can't communicate in English. This should have been done as a technical, but there was a question so we left it open for a week to talk about. It still needs to be done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; I see you "rectified" that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: Hi. I apologise the confusion regarding the relist. I got a little confused over the RfC. I misunderstood that the RfC's outcome was against the proposal. So to achieve more discussion, and broader consensus; I relisted it. Also, sorry for the delayed reply here. When I saw your comment here, I visited the discussion, and then the RfC. I thought you weren't online, so I moved to correct my mistake. Thanks a lot for pointing it out. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kazakhstan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kazakhstan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Greetings
Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). |
November 2017
Hello, I'm Longhair. An edit that you recently made to Niš (boat) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Longhair\talk 03:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Longhair: Nice to see you back on the field! :) And no, I actually undid the possible vandalism in which the user deliberately inserted a spelling mistake. special:diff/811664401. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe your (well, your) most recent addition there needs diffs. CityOfSilver 03:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @CityOfSilver: Hi. I think the diffs are optional when the vandal is a pro. In case I find a non-pro vandal, I will include the diffs. :)
This one has already been taken care of by Paul Erik. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)- I kind of figured as much; it wasn't like you needed to bend over backwards to get that goofball blocked. It just read funny:
"vandalism, including:"
and then your username. No big deal. CityOfSilver 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)- @CityOfSilver: yeah, that would be cuz it was reported automatically through Huggle. Twinkle usually drops out the "including" part. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I kind of figured as much; it wasn't like you needed to bend over backwards to get that goofball blocked. It just read funny:
Arbcom election
Hi, I understand your good faith in asking questions of the candidates, but I think you have missed the fact that I resigned very loudly nearly a year ago from managing NPP. Perhaps you would like to consider making any updates to your questions. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you did. But you are like a legend when it comes to NPP. Imean, everybody knows you, and your work regarding NPP. I will see what I can do about the questions. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
A very well deserved Barnstar for you!
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
For being one of the top 50 reviewers of the last 12 months. Thank you very much for your reviewing! Also, thank you for your efforts towards creating the NPP invite template; using it I have so far snagged up a dozen new reviewers and counting. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks a lot Insertcleverphrasehere. It is very much appreciated. This is one of the very few barnstars that I actually deserve . I only created the invite template, and invited very few users (with or without the it). But you have done far more work than me. And yes, the PERM seems to be a lot busy now. ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 08:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- News and notes: Cons, cons, cons
- Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely
- Technology report: Searching and surveying
- Interview: A featured article centurion
- WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects
- In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution
- Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate
- Featured content: We will remember them
- Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text
Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: S. C. Rai
Hello Usernamekiran. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of S. C. Rai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. —Kusma (t·c) 22:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do not create linkrot. Speedy-deleting past page titles, with a few exceptions, is harmful and expressly prohibited by CAT:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User page deleted
Hi Usernamekiran, I've completed the deletion of your user page - I hope this isn't a sign of you wishing to no longer be active here! If there is anything I can do to help, please feel free to get in touch -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime: erm... No, you didn't delete the userpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- You tagged it for CSD. Either way, no drama -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime: lol. I was kidding. You are fast! You deleted it, and then I created it again. I just wanted to clear some personal data from the history. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- My bad glad it's nothing major though! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime:
Do you remember me though? You once gave me a barnstar. It is one of the three barnstars that I actually deserve. I even have an admin's barnstar. It is more shiny than yours —usernamekiran(talk) 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime:
- My bad glad it's nothing major though! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime: lol. I was kidding. You are fast! You deleted it, and then I created it again. I just wanted to clear some personal data from the history. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- You tagged it for CSD. Either way, no drama -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
- Joe Roe
- JzG
- Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga
- Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
- Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
- A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
- Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.
- Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sandbox help
Following your past note to me (joflaher), I created a new page, Eosinophilic myocarditis, on my sandbox, as you suggested, and submitted it two days ago. I then learned that its review may take over two months. However, I hope to make this page a foundation page for further pages that are closely related to it and that I wish to start creating now. I am an extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer and autopatrolled. Perhaps I should of submitted this new page directly to you but I did not know how to do that. Would you speed up the review of Eosinophilic myocarditis or allow me to directly add this page? In all events, thank you for your past and, I hope, future help. (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I apologise for delayed reply. I will post a detailed message on your talkpage. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
—usernamekiran(talk) 17:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Usernamekiran. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I voted as soon as the voting was open —usernamekiran(talk) 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you added a notability tag on an article I created. That being said, I have added reliable sources that mention this film from the Detroit Free Press and the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) to the article to pass WP:NFSOURCES. I encourage that you please remove the notability tag as I cannot per WP:WTRMT. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ireland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
What does "preserved as an archive" imply?
Greetings Usernamekiran. You made a comment in the discussion about my request to move the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yellow_Dog_Updater,_Modified to "Yellowdog Updater, Modified". That request has been pending for many weeks now, and I've responded to all objections (I hope) to other editors' satisfaction.
But the discussion seems to have dried up and is still unresolved. Now I see the discussion has been "preserved as an archive" but I don't really understand what that means for my request.
So I came to your Talk page hoping to get an answer. Is there something else I need to do to get that page title corrected so that it accurately maps to the acronym (YUM)? I'm doing this at the request of the original developer. Thanks for any info you can provide. I've been an editor for some time but have never gone through this extended process. Heimhenge (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Heimhenge: hi. Apologise for the delay. I will answer your doubts in 24 hours. Sorry again. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 00:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)- @Heimhenge: Hi. The request was closed as "no consensus". That means there was not enough clarity to what name the article should be moved, or if it should be moved at all. "Preserved as an archive" simply means that the discussion has been closed, and there should be no more changes to that particular discussion; for future references. But it doesnt mean that there cant be another discussion again. But I would recommend to wait for few weeks (maybe a month or two), before making the new request; as in most of the times there are oppose votes with rationale similar to "proposer is wasting community's time by making same requests". If there are any more questions, please let me know. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Usernamekiran. I will wait till after the holidays and resubmit my move request. Heimhenge (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
- Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
- If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
- A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
- Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
- ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
- The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Please comment on Talk:Emily Thornberry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emily Thornberry. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas !!!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks CAPTAIN RAJU! —usernamekiran(talk) 14:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Invites and change in the backlog
Having a look at my invitee stats page, and comparing it to the change in the backlog in the last month (down 3200 from 27th Nov), it seems as though the backlog has reduced by exactly the same amount as the number of articles that have been reviewed by the 60ish people I brought on board. Coincidence? I think not. At this rate, a backlog drive seems almost superfluous, but I'm still going to run it so that we can crush the damn thing flat to zero. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
HNY
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a reminder
that FIM is dead, long live SN54129. No-one doubts your perspicacity :) cheers, >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)