Please allow me to explain the background of this. Someone originally found the figures you did, and claimed that Hebden had a population of 309. Unfortunately, those figures include those living in Hartlington which is a separate village and has its own Wiki page, and so the figures apropos Hebden are obviously wrong, and its population has not increased by 50% in 10 years. What I did was to download the population data for the postcodes, and summed the population figures for the Hebden postcodes, and came up with the figure 230. If that is considered to be not a Wikipedia thing to do, then by all means delete the number. But I beg you, please do not put replace it with what is blatantly false information. Langcliffe (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing that says it includes Hartlington. The calculation of the figure looks like WP:SYNTHESIS. I have tagged it for a source for now. Keith D (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not in so many words, but the boundary drawn on the accompanying map distinctly shows that Hartlington is included, and the size given for the census area is that of the areas of Hebden + Hartlington. Surely we can interpret sources with some commonsense? Langcliffe (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
You would not know that unless you know the area, which most readers would not. Keith D (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure of your point, Keith. Does Wikipedia policy say that we should put in #fakefacts because one part of a source when taken in isolation could be interpreted by a Wikipedia editor in that way? The source includes a map that distinctly shows that Hartlington parish has been included in the figures, as can be readily verified by reference to an Ordnance Survey map. The map is presumably there for a reason, and is as much part of the source material as the population figure you quoted. Taking the information the map provides does not require knowledge of the area; it is simply taking into consideration all the information provided by a reputable source. Or am I totally out on a limb here? Langcliffe (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Welcome to the one hundredth and twentieth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 13,993 last month to 14,013 on 7 April 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of WP:GM who have 86. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 66 out of a total number of 4,049 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
As of 28 March 2018, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner.
(Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however)
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Delivered April 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
All references for the above entry cite the date of publication as 15 April 1755, but with no sources given. According to adverts in The Public Advertiser, 1st April 1755, it was due to be published on that date. However, the earliest reference to it being for sale was in Derby Mercury 4 April 1755. Is it possible to amend this date and add the source? AllthingsGeorgian (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You are free to make the change to the article and give the references, though I would add the page number to both references. Keith D (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-16
15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for adding NHLE templates to so many articles. Edwardx (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks much appreciated. Keith D (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Keith - can u please fix ref number 59. The editor is David Poole and the actual writer of the article is Michael Reed. This needs to be made clear. Thanks as always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.22.145 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I have switched the editor/author fields round. Keith D (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi Keith D. With a recent edit you made to Common Sense (J Hus album), you inserted hyphens into the UK (and Scottish) album chart templates on the page as a date "fix". This is not fixing the date in these templates, as they need to be without hyphens (so 20180430) to work correctly. With hyphens, they redirect to the current chart and this helps nobody. Please be mindful of this if you're using a script that changes these automatically (and if possible, please change said script so it ignores all UK and Scottish single chart and album chart templates). If it wasn't automatic, please avoid changing these in future. Thanks. Ss112 15:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for causing problems. It was not automatic, purely manual changes as I was fixing dates to be in accordance with the MOS in attempting to clear out the 29,000 cite date errors we have at the moment. This is an exception to the normal case, will have to keep an eye out for it in future. Keith D (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Tech News: 2018-18
16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Minakhan and other pages
Many thanks for your corrections. I am forced to use certain district level information in the community development block pages, because the information available at the CD Block level is not always enough to explain the position. This leads to duplication of information from page to page. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundredth and twenty first WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,013 last month to 14,047 on 29 April 2018). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 146 is ahead of WP:GM who have 85. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 67 out of a total number of 4,053 articles.
Currently we have forty six Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The May 2018 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered May 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.