Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal
Have you received all pages you need from the above book.? The book is in my hand. It is a forth impression published in 2014 with a new postscript. I have borrowed the book from library. Let me know, if you need anything from it. Regards. -Gazal world (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Gazal world, Chapter 2 (highest priority) , Chapter 6 (lowest priority) and the Conclusion (moderate priority):-) Many thanks for your efforts ! ∯WBGconverse 06:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Gazal world, assuming Chapter 2 is :-
Beginnings of social protest and construction of the community 1872-1905
and Chapter 6 isFrom alienation to integration 1937-1947: the leaders
. ∯WBGconverse 06:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)- Yeah. You are right. Shot me an E-mail. -Gazal world (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-42
22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Keras
- I've left an update on the talk page for this page that was market for deletion. Keras — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viksit (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Check
Category:Orders of magnitude ∯WBGconverse 03:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Neo-Bechstein
Hi Winged_Blades_of_Godric, good rewrite, but you have made a mistake. The piano was invented in 1930, before guitars. It was microphone pickup. it borrowed the usage of magnetic pickup from electric guitars for sound-amplification is wrong. The reference is wrong. The orginal Nerst article states it was a microphone. The book ref completely wide of the mark troubled the conventional performers is dodgy, the process is called Action or piano action, re: Action (piano). Apart from that pretty decent. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- This ref: https://books.google.com/books?id=Rewixo7Mv0UC&pg=PA120 doesn't say it was built from 1922. scope_creep (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- A few details do not overlap across the sources. I will look into this, by evening:-) ∯WBGconverse 06:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for verifying legal proceedings
@ Thanks for giving the proof of legal process; I have been working for more than a year that the case was filed in my legal offices, first I didn't believe the victim of the wiki-contributors such as you, you gave me the verification, putting on a great risk the project, which already is facing such legal processes. I will teach you in real legal ways the rules that you never know that such acting with the calibration and advices of some administrators, who are caught through URL privately massages to damage the article, with personal motivation. Let we see in the American courts that you and your kinds of stupids are right or not. We need not article, we need to teach you and project, what the reality is. For now you the gang involved in that article becoming under the terrible legal process, damaging the project. I am not interested in that you will try to block me from editing, I have done for my legal proof to summit the case. Once again thanks for providing authentic proof. Saurusleo (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni and Oshwah:, whilst I don't give a damn about legal threats, I guess a particular line of NLT:--
Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute
is explicitly violated given his statement:--I have been working for more than a year that the case was filed in my legal offices
.Any takes?! ∯WBGconverse 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)- That's correct, and the user's message here clearly shows that this is what's occurring. I'll talk to the user about this directly and let them know. I'm also quite concerned with parts of their message here - specifically statements such as, "you gave me the verification, putting on a great risk the project, which already is facing such legal processes", "I will teach you in real legal ways the rules that you never know that such acting with the calibration and advices of some administrators, who are caught through URL privately massages to damage the article, with personal motivation. Let we see in the American courts that you and your kinds of stupids are right or not. We need not article, we need to teach you and project, what the reality is", and "I am not interested in that you will try to block me from editing, I have done for my legal proof to summit the case". I have to ask though... what exactly is this user referring to when he thanks you for "giving the proof of legal process"? What is he talking about exactly? Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oshwah, his legal-rant was w.r.t this edit of mine.I also see some weird threads over here and here around the same locus. ∯WBGconverse 14:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeeeauuup, I figured that it was something like that... Thank you for the diff and for providing me links to relevant ANI discussions as well. This will be helpful to me so that I can investigate fully and make sure the issue is fully handled and the article free from disruption. I've asked the user to retract or clarify their statements here, and gave them a time that I need to hear back from the user by before I'll have to make a decision regarding action and without their involvement. I just reverted an IP editor's revert to the article (it's clearly the same user attempting to edit while logged out; I've warned them appropriately). Either way this goes, they're only a few minutes away from being blocked for edit warring, disruption, and NLT. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked both the account and the IP address involved and protected the article for a few days. If you see any more issues or disruption that I need to handle, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks for letting me know about this issue here, and I hope you have a great day and happy editing ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeeeauuup, I figured that it was something like that... Thank you for the diff and for providing me links to relevant ANI discussions as well. This will be helpful to me so that I can investigate fully and make sure the issue is fully handled and the article free from disruption. I've asked the user to retract or clarify their statements here, and gave them a time that I need to hear back from the user by before I'll have to make a decision regarding action and without their involvement. I just reverted an IP editor's revert to the article (it's clearly the same user attempting to edit while logged out; I've warned them appropriately). Either way this goes, they're only a few minutes away from being blocked for edit warring, disruption, and NLT. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oshwah, his legal-rant was w.r.t this edit of mine.I also see some weird threads over here and here around the same locus. ∯WBGconverse 14:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's correct, and the user's message here clearly shows that this is what's occurring. I'll talk to the user about this directly and let them know. I'm also quite concerned with parts of their message here - specifically statements such as, "you gave me the verification, putting on a great risk the project, which already is facing such legal processes", "I will teach you in real legal ways the rules that you never know that such acting with the calibration and advices of some administrators, who are caught through URL privately massages to damage the article, with personal motivation. Let we see in the American courts that you and your kinds of stupids are right or not. We need not article, we need to teach you and project, what the reality is", and "I am not interested in that you will try to block me from editing, I have done for my legal proof to summit the case". I have to ask though... what exactly is this user referring to when he thanks you for "giving the proof of legal process"? What is he talking about exactly? Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I had been traveling the past few days and saw that Oshwah had responded when you first pinged me. Glad everything looks fine here, but if there's anything else I can help with, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, no qualms:-) It's all settled courtesy Oshwah! ∯WBGconverse 19:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't grave dancing...
I was really genuinely concerned that it had come to this. I actually went there with the intention of placing a Wikilove banner with a laurel leaf, but when I saw the rest - well, you know me. However, it doesn't change the fact that PA, using expletives in edit summaries, repeatedly refactoring others' comments (thanks for your intervention), and doing witch hunts on admins are not going to make a user's stay at Wikipedia more enjoyable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-43
23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 30
Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
- Library Card translation
- Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Edmond de Belamy
Hi. What's going on with Edmond de Belamy?? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anna Frodesiak, Apologies for any confusion:( I tweaked the NPP-AfD template and was checking the stuff:-) ∯WBGconverse 12:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm confused. Do you still want it deleted? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely
- News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks
- In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias
- Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform
- Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring
- Technology report: Bots galore!
- Special report: NPP needs you
- Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six
- In focus: Alexa
- Gallery: Out of this world!
- Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion
- Humour: Talk page humour
- Opinion: Strickland incident
- From the archives: The Gardner Interview
At a time, when things went well
easy stuff
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207442 (With immediacy)
Thoughts that did not see the light of the day....Read a lot.....
- The tags are on our to-do list; we're actually talking about adding an extra filter/colour for "stuff that may potentially have issues as per abusefilter tags". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:44 am, 17 July 2012, Tuesday (6 years, 3 months, 14 days ago) (UTC+5.5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page_Curation/Archive_3#Apologies_for_the_quietness!
- Template:Cite check
Thanks for all your hard work!
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For all the work you have been putting forward on addressing on-wiki issues with the Page Curation Toolset. Thanks very much. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you:-) Your efforts to maintain the NPP eco-system are valued a lot! ∯WBGconverse 16:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Phoenix Tour
Hey, please don't mark the Phoenix World Tour article for deletion! I'm currently working on improving the article, by adding the tour dates and more references. --Helptottt (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Helptottt, that was a testing of a template, for which you were randomly chosen.No need to worry and I self-reverted within a few seconds:-) Go on with your editing!
- At any case, did you appear here from the message left by me, at your t/p which stayed for a minute or so?
- If yes, why did you choose to approach me at my t/p rather than ping me, as the message directed?
- Or did the message vanish by the time, you typed out your reply?
- The answers to the above three questions will be helpful, as to developing some perspective on how users see new templates:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Blades. You are worrying people with this template testing. Why not use my articles (which will now not phaze me) instead of randomly choosing other people's...and putting the shits up them :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks:-) That saves more random people from being spooked by a bunch of notifications about a pending deletion and big orange banners screaming the existence of a message, which magically disappears before they cam get to see it!
- FWIW, I agree that this is troubling people and is a poor method.I might have done this on test.wiki except that there's a whole lot of problem over conducting an exact simulation over there, largely stemming from the yet-unbundled patrol flag.......∯WBGconverse 16:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Blades. You are worrying people with this template testing. Why not use my articles (which will now not phaze me) instead of randomly choosing other people's...and putting the shits up them :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock. Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists. It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more. And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more. Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Template Unreviewed New Article
Looking in that category (Category:Unreviewed_new_articles), it looks like most of them are old examples that must have been reviewed already but somebody left the template on. Why don't we just deprecate the template and get rid of it altogether? I think it is added by the article creation wizard, if we can just remove that functionality, then we can start a TfD and then we don't need to do anything with the PC tools or Twinkle. The template is pretty useless. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-44
20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
mistake
Could you clarify this edit of yours? It seems in error. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Tech News: 2018-45
17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting my !votes?
Voter suppression? What? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Happy Dipawali
Happy Dipawali Winged Blades of Godric |
-Gazal world (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Gazal world, Thanks:-) And, best wishes for the auspicious day to you too........... ∯WBGconverse 16:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Growth team updates #3
Welcome to the third newsletter for the new Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
Two Growth team projects to be deployed in next two weeks
We will be deploying the "Understanding first day" and "Personalized first day" projects on Czech and Korean Wikipedias in the coming weeks. See the new project pages below for full details on the projects, and our project updates page for their progress.
- Understanding first day: learn about the actions new editors take right after creating their accounts. We will be careful with user privacy, and we hope to share initial results in December.
- Personalized first day: learn about new editors' objectives by adding some optional questions to the new editor’s registration process, and personalizing their onboarding. We hope to share initial results in December.
Third Growth team project begins
- Focus on help desk: direct newcomers to the local help desks where they can ask questions to help them make their first edits. We hope to have an initial experiment running in December.
Best practices for helping newcomers
We are going to direct newcomers to help desks. But what's the best way to reply to a newcomer there? We have gathered some best practices for successful interactions, based on community experiences and some external documentation. The page has also been reviewed by some experienced community members who suggested some changes. That page is now open for translations. Comments and suggestions are still welcome!
We are still looking for volunteers
Do you want to participate to our experiments? We are looking for new communities to work with us (especially a new mid-size wiki), and people to become ambassadors to help us to communicate with the different communities. Discover how you can involve yourself or your community.
Also, please share this update with your community and interested people!
Learn more about us
You can visit our team page to find out why our team was formed and how we are thinking about new editors, and our project page for detailed updates on the projects we'll work on.
Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 13:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC) • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Read
User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing,
Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somalal Shah
This AfD should not have been closed as "speedy keep", as it does not meet any of the WP:SKCRIT. "WP:SNOW keep" would be a better description. Thanks, feminist (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the edit-conflict
Trying to revert some vandalism from an IP. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- 28bytes, no qualms and thanks for whatever (it ain't visible to my eyes) you did:-)
- On a side-note, since you have questioned my use of rollback in the edit-war; I will offer my broader thoughts and note my rationale behind the usage.
- Hours after the ridiculous mess, it seems the worst forms of SuperMario effect is in full flow and one of our most respected sysops, (someone for whose views I have the highest regards for), believes that we have a solemn responsibility to be ice-calm even in face of absolute nightmarish incompetency and 'intentional stupidity/bad-faith actions' from
Wikipedia Old God(s)
(at a time, when God-ness was proportional to the cube of proximity to Jimbo) and has resorted to granting creative legitimacy to the whole process of ArbCom election (videIf a candidate had to receive their first ever block on the eve of an election, it should have at least come after a community review.
) Sigh......... -
- Many have noted that Fred was supposedly affected by linking of his off-wiki activities, not showing him in a favorite light which contributed to the wildness.
-
- I note very equivalent questions about his debarment at his 2006 RFArb.
-
- So a resurface was not any unexpected and it was not a bolt from the blue scenario.
-
- As to the notion that he may be a old-time legacy admin, who has just failed to keep pace with the updates, (JzG) that's again wrong.
-
- The specifics of 2006 Arbelections mentions
To prevent "disendorsements", voters were requested to not add extensive comments to their votes; such comments may have been moved to the talk page by an uninvolved party. They were, of course, free to ask questions of the candidates.
- The specifics of 2006 Arbelections mentions
-
- Unless the definition of involved party, in this particular locus, has transformed radically, Fred's actions to selectively censor critical comments can be derived as intentional and disruptive since he knew such stuff was not practiced/allowed.
-
- It only compounded to the miserable scenario, that his replies to other's question(s), gave impressions of being intentionally tangent and powwerposing as someone who is not doing a service to the community but rather sees the other way round.Old God,.........:-)
-
- In such a scenario, I am very inclined to take his actions as plainly trolling equating to vandalism and thus fulfilling RBCriterion 1 which states RB may be used
to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
.
- In such a scenario, I am very inclined to take his actions as plainly trolling equating to vandalism and thus fulfilling RBCriterion 1 which states RB may be used
-
- I though understand that my views might not be shared by certain sections of community, (who are all quite-respected and rational) and hence, I will take the overall comments (as to this saga) to correct my own editorial-tactics during these special times.
-
- P.S. (About his self-unblock) :--
-
- That unblocking oneself squarely lies in prohibited territory was introduced over this edit in February, 2008 and re-inforced in March, 2008 by FT2, an arbitrator.
-
- That means roughly two months after Fred's Arbship came to an end. It's simply impossible for him to be not being aware of the explicit prohibitions.
- Best, ∯WBGconverse 12:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Rollback is only for Obvious vandalism. Obvious being the operative word here. You dont need a 3.7KB response to explain the "obvious". --DBigXrayᗙ 13:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Much of the 3.7 kb is broad commentary on the issue:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, no doubt, but I hope you got the point. Folks at AN aren't going to accept even 1 line of explanation for explaining obvious, since it defeats the whole purpose of "obvious". But nothing stops you from testing and you can continue testing them. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Much of the 3.7 kb is broad commentary on the issue:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Rollback is only for Obvious vandalism. Obvious being the operative word here. You dont need a 3.7KB response to explain the "obvious". --DBigXrayᗙ 13:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you presenting your thoughts in such detail, but just to be clear, that rollback was abuse of the tool and is grounds for losing that right. It's one thing to start and escalate an edit war, as you did with Fred, but it's much worse to do so with the rollback tool using no edit summary to explain what you're doing. I try not to template the regulars, but yes, that is a warning not to do that again, or you will lose that tool. Just about everyone in that situation chose to escalate when they easily could have (and should have) tried de-escalating; just because Fred's conduct was the most egregiously wrong does not mean everyone else was behaving properly. 28bytes (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- 28bytes, noted with thanks and that your warning was basically needless.
- I've repeated multiple times (including in the current case-request and twice, over this very thread) that my usage was non-optimal and that I will heed to the concerns of the community, as to my usage of RB.
- As long as IAR is a policy, it fairly suffices for stand-alone cases.
- Ta. ∯WBGconverse 16:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
MedCom closure WP:AN thread
Sorry, I didn't think you meant you were in the process of closing the RfC. Either way, there seems to be consensus supporting the proposal, if that helps you with writing a closing statement. I'll just say that I marked the main MedCom page as historical per WP:IAR. SemiHypercube ✎ 01:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I marked a bunch more pages historical and redirected some to the MedComm page that were more procedural. I also edited the dispute resolution template and edited various guide pages to remove sections talking about MedComm as a method of disput resolution. I don't know if I got everything but I likely got 90% of the places we need to change. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: Actually, you probably got less than 90%. I would do more, but I think the RfC needs a real close (what's taking so long?) SemiHypercube ✎ 18:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- SemiHypercube, that I am a volunteer, have got a real-life and got involved in the drama of the month.
- Anyways, thanks to both you and Legacypac for taking care of the stuff:-) ∯WBGconverse 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-46
19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Template editor granted
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
- Useful links
- All template-protected pages
- User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! — xaosflux Talk 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Xaosflux, Thank you :-) ∯WBGconverse 16:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Any perks, eh? Vacations, cellars and all that stuff........?! :)
- And, by the way, thanks for providing me with the idea of redesigning my signature! ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing of that nature, but we do have this amazing badge:
- No problem at all, I'm sure I saw something that inspired me to my signature. I can't remember now though. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Winged Blades of Godric,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Alas, the drama did not cease.
Complete reversion by Walter of my addition of a "legacy" section; my edits added prose, consolidated the retrospective scores there while keeping both Rolling Stone scores in the "(Contemporary) reception" section and adding a few new ones. Perhaps you can offer an opinion on the merits at the new Rfc. Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Cleveland RfC
I'm pretty sure I left you a note about that, and you replied that you wouldn't reconsider, but now I can't find it. I've taken the page off my watchlist because I was fed up by what happened (not because of you). SarahSV (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, yeah, you are (sort of) right and I must be quasi-blamed for not watching the page further, (in anticipation that you might add something).
- I typically watchlist the page(s) of RFCs in anticipation that a close-challenge is often-proposed over that very t/p but this case was weird.
- As to the timeline:---
- On 20th August, 2018 you pinged me to vacate my close at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Table>. It was without any strong rationale and in light of Jytdog's reply, I denied the request.
- On 21st August, you started a new thread wherein you posted a detailed analysis about why my close ought be vacated. Jytdog pinged me twice over that thread but I did not receive any of the pings.(Pings are hardly reliable and I prefer tb-messages, for these reasons)Consequently, I was not aware of the new developments until today, when I went back to the page.
- At any case, I apologize for giving impressions of un-responsiveness and not keeping a watch on that page. Am looking into the stuff right now. ∯WBGconverse 06:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, here it is. I'd forgotten that it was on the talk page itself. SarahSV (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, which of course I accept. The issue at that article is that several editors associated with the hospital had tried a few times to remove the rankings. Then the director of corporate communications opened that RfC without telling editors on the page (in fairness to her, she just wasn't aware of how to go about things). Two of the page's editors did notice the RfC, but they didn't tell the rest of us about it. So suddenly there was an RfC closure that none of us knew about, triggered by a paid editor, being used to remove the rankings. I gave up rather than argue about it any longer. SarahSV (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk posts
Hi WBG, sorry for reverting you. I don't think it will lead to a productive discussion [16]. But at the same time, we can't delete posts based on whether we think they will be productive or not. If they are off-topic then yes. But when a comment criticises the content of the article, even if via WP:OR comments, I am afraid it has to be retained. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, I understand your point but prefer to take a far harsher route in volatile atmospheres. As far as the progress over the thread goes, a few back and forth in a similar vein and someone will need to hat it. ∯WBGconverse 09:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-47
23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
RFC closed
Hi WBG, regarding Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_should_we_automatically_pending-changes_protect_Today's_Featured_Articles? is anyone working on implementing this that you know of? — xaosflux Talk 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Xaosflux, none, AFAIS. ∯WBGconverse 13:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I started Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#RFC_enforcement_-_TFA_image_protection if you are interested. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
A problematic redirect
It hurts my head to think about it...but here's the issue: Jerry Frankel is a redirect to a list of Jeopardy! contestants. A new BLP has since been created for Jerry Frankel (producer), so how do I eliminate the redirect and create a dab, which is the appropriate thing to do in this instance, is it not? Atsme✍🏻📧 22:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme, nice to see you at my t/p:-)
- I initially created a DAB at Jerry Frankel over this edit of mine but, as I went through the AfD (which led to the article on the Jeopardy contestant, being converted to a redirect), I found that the subject had failed to get any coverage, at all.
- So, clearly the newly created article ought be the primary target.
- Consequently, did a cut-paste from Jerry Frankel (producer) to Jerry Frankel over these two edits and installed a hat-note at the latter to point to the section at List of Jeopardy! contestants about the contestant.
- Pending the execution of the sought history-merge, the entire stuff will be fine:-) ∯WBGconverse 07:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)