|
Contents
- 1 Talk to me, Andy Mabbett
- 2 The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- 3 Tech News: 2016-11
- 4 Wikidata weekly summary #200
- 5 IPBE
- 6 The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- 7 Holding cell question
- 8 Wikidata weekly summary #201
- 9 It's a birthday
- 10 Automated talkpage archiving vs manual archiving/Walter O'Brien talkpage length
- 11 Tech News: 2016-12
- 12 Link in an edit notice?
- 13 WP:Project Accuracy
- 14 The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
Talk to me, Andy Mabbett
- If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
- If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so please reply there rather than here (but do feel free to drop a copy of {{Talkback}} here).
- If appropriate, I will move discussion from here to the relevant article's talk page, so that anyone interested can join in.
- If you want to start a new discussion thread, please start it at the bottom of the page. Better still, use the "new section" tab next to the "edit this page" tab, or the link at the foot of this section, either of which will do that automatically.
- Please do not make links from within section headings.
- Inaccessible HTML (coloured text, "small" tags, etc.) will be removed from this page on sight.
- Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted
- Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks
- Traffic report: All business like show business
- WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Tech News: 2016-11
18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #200
Wikidata weekly summary #186
IPBE
I've given you the right back; your reason for wanting it seems reasonable, and I understand that if you need it, you'll almost definitely have zero advance notice that you need it. As you're well aware, IPBE is considered a much, much bigger deal than it really should be, so please be really careful not to do something you're not supposed to do, as described here. And as you're also aware, checkusers may check your account solely because you have IPBE. In particular, you should not use it to edit through Tor, as that isn't the reason I granted it. To be clear, I'm ticking off all these caveats to cover my ass, not because I expect there to be a problem. Hope this prevents problems for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: All noted and agreed. Thank you, that's a big weight off my mind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I should also have said that IPBE will be removed if it looks like you've edited while logged out (beyond the occasional obviously innocent mistake). Editors with IPBE pretty much give up the right to make even innocuous edits while not logged in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia
- In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing
- Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States
- Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov
Holding cell question
To your knowledge, is there any reason we haven't substituted the {{Infobox Country at the Universiade}}
and {{Infobox Country Asian Para Games}}
transclusions using the wrapper you created yet? If nothing comes to mind, I'll go ahead and do it to finish out that merge. ~ RobTalk 04:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: No reason that I know of, other than lack of volunteers. Please go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. And now to see if whichever admin gets to it will consider deletion of things like
{{Infobox Universiade Italy}}
uncontroversial so I don't have to file a 60 template TfD... ~ RobTalk 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)- @BU Rob13: Nice work; thank you - and deletion seems to be going well. It's good to see someone working on the backlog. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. And now to see if whichever admin gets to it will consider deletion of things like
Wikidata weekly summary #201
It's a birthday
I tried Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Automated talkpage archiving vs manual archiving/Walter O'Brien talkpage length
As you can see, it is a problematic article where a lot of the claims are self-published claims which generally have the facts emerging afterwards. This results in a kind of event driven editing/commmenting process. The length of the talk page is due to these problems that these self-published claims and unreliable sources cause. Is it possible to limit the talk page to around half its current length or perhaps manually archive the topics rather than using a bulk archiving approach? Jmccormac (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jmccormac: Both are possible, but less sensible. If there are persistent issues, write a brief talk page notice, and link to the relevant section of the archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Tech News: 2016-12
16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Link in an edit notice?
(diff | hist) . . Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy; 18:25 . . (0) . . Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 711219553 by Anmccaff (talk) So put a link in an edit notice)
I'm unsure what you are asking for here. I reverted your edit because there are long-stanging controversies that probably should not be archived before they are worked out, and not until they are worked out. Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: See Wikipedia:Editnotice. There is no need to keep things that haven't been edited for a month or more, on talk page which is currently 213,335 bytes long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I hope, you understand that I've explicitly disagreed with that already; archiving part of an ongoing discussion may "clear" the talk page initially, but at the cost of later reiteration. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: Which is why you use an edit notice, to link to highlight and link to the earlier discussion. Though discussions not edited for a month or more are not "ongoing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could you point me toward an example? Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anmccaff: Lots on Wikipedia:Editnotice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Could you point me toward an example? Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: Which is why you use an edit notice, to link to highlight and link to the earlier discussion. Though discussions not edited for a month or more are not "ongoing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I hope, you understand that I've explicitly disagreed with that already; archiving part of an ongoing discussion may "clear" the talk page initially, but at the cost of later reiteration. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:Project Accuracy
Go somewhere else |
---|
Hi, POTW - while I can understand your concerns, I would be very appreciative if you would at least try to discuss things with me first. I am not some unreasonable editor that you need to bypass to get things done. I was a bit taken back by your reaction to my proposal for an editorial review board because you never even gave me an opportunity to discuss it, and now you've requested a name change for an image. Why don't you at least extend me the courtesy of discussing it first? Atsme📞📧 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)